40% thrown away does not necessarily imply all others are better.
Normally imperfect produce goes to processing plants (juice, cans, pies etc.) but I'm not sure if there's any significant market for banana chunks/puree.
Banana chips are usually made with cooking bananas, also known as plátano in south America. It's a different fruit, much less sweet, usually eaten after cooking and before the ripening is complete (plátano verde).
It's quite uncommon in Europe and NA, but it's a staple of the central and south American cuisine
They figured out ways to cram all the subsidized surplus soy and almonds nobody wants into every conceivable product, they could certainly manage to do so with ugly bananas.
Our local popular brand of fish sticks has banana puree as an ingredient. It's not noticeable at all, at most it changes the texture of the batter a little.
It’s really crazy how cheap bananas are. They’re flown in from tropical countries and are at least half the cost of local in season produce. And they’re throwing away so many at every stage of production.
I feel the same way about chicken and eggs. Like all the feed, the time, and effort of raising them, the cost to transport, them, kill and cook them, etc.
And I can get a dozen eggs for a couple of bucks, or an entire rotisserie chicken for like $6
That and buyers preferring "pretty"/consistent produce, which means supermarkets only want to buy produce to spec because the other stuff won't sell as well, shelf space is limited and it costs the supermarket more to waste unsold food than to just not buy food unlikely to sell. There are online markets out there that sell "ugly" produce that's not to spec, but they aren't broadly popular enough to make a huge dent in waste.
actually you know what ... i would probably buy food that looks funny simply for the giggles in it ... i'm kinda bored of normativity; "designers" (advertisement people) invent useless garbage new patterns all the time to "mix it up and keep it entertaining" ... why not just use non-conformous food that naturally grows that way anyways?
It wouldn't decrease prices quite as much as you'd think, since so much of the cost of a banana is transportation, which they don't do with the ones they throw out. They should still do it, obviously, and then transport them on trains to reduce transportation cost as well.
iirc transport on ship is actually cheaper than trains i think due to not needing rails and also ships being fucking huge which means low surface area to volume ratio, so you need less steel to build them.
also how do you build a train line from south america to europe?
Humans have produced enough food, and had the capability to feed every human in the world for over 500 years. Every famine you've seen in the news, all of them, has been caused by keeping food from being delivered to those that are hungry.
had the capability to feed every human in the world for over 500 years
Not 500, more like 120 or so years. First thanks to the invention of refrigerated logistics (essential for transporting foodstuffs without them spoiling during the trip) and then thanks to the Haber-Bosch process of extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere, which is essential for industrial fertilizers.
Famines since ~1930 could've been avoided if the "waste" surplus was redirected
We've moved preserved food since the discovery of salt. Transport, refrigeration and fertilizer technologies just let our population explode within the last century. The population levels prior to those technologies was more than supported by the transportation and food production capabilities of the time.
That's just historically untrue. 500 years ago we didn't have much of the technology needed for reliable harvest. Many farms were still highly dependant on rain. No rain, no crops. A late freeze, no crops. Locusts, no crops. You starve.That simple.
This doesn't include the absolute necessity of artificial fertizlier in maintaining the modern population.
Maybe your statement could be true if we had the ability to move crops from areas not expirencing a disaster that could have fixed it, but would have been very difficult and required a global effort. So technically humanity may have produced enough food, but there was not a real way to move it. Even ignoring profit incentives that control logistics and assuming a altruistic system of redistribution, it could take weeks for messages to arrive in areas that did have food. Then it would take weeks to move it. No refrigeration, the fastest you could move is horse.
The fastest you'd need to move is by horse or ship. Food preservation has been a thing since the discovery of salt. And we didn't need artificial fertilizer centuries ago, because we didn't need to support this many people on limited land, that's a very recent problem. Also cities grew near water for a reason, that's how they got their food. Ships moving food supplies.
Right so how are we increasing salt production? You'll need more workers, which leaves less people available for farming. Could salt production even be scaled to match that demand given the technology? You'll now need an increased network capacity to move the extra salt. More horses, more pots, more baskets, more drivers.
What about places without access by water?
Artificial fertilizer does however allow for a reliable surplus. Something necessary for a redistribution network. You need some kind of fertilizer and natural sources for scalable farming are rare.
You've created a fictional understanding of logistics that sums up to "just move the stuff" without considering the consequences.
You're misunderstanding my statement, there is no need for increased production, because it already existed. There is no need for an expanded distribution system, it already existed. There is no need for more of anything, because it was already sitting there, just going to somewhere else. The only changes needed were which wagon, or which ship, the only consequences were who made how much profit, and who got credit for it.
Oh no I understand your statements, it's just they are inherently wrong.
Honestly if you said in the last 200 years (maybe even 300) we wouldn't be arguing. I think you're severally over-estimating the surplus created by pre-industrial farmers and the amount of the economy engaged in luxury or profiteering. Most people then produced what they needed and little more. Yes there were portions of the economy tooled to serve the needs of the elite, but I'm not convinced that is enough labor to completely eliminate hunger even if redistributed to production and logistical networks.
We're not even getting into how common slavery was for agricultural production. If we are creating a new system to ensure everyone is fed how do we deal with that?
Exactly, nothing about capitalism is efficient and it never was. Capitalism is brutally effective at producing large quantities of stuff, but that doesn't mean the waste is mitigated at all. In fact, the waste correlates with production.
Food waste is good so we have more stuff than we need. Otherwise when the next volcano erupts it's famine time again (just look it up, it has happened at least 10 times during the last 2000 years and each time it caused a famine).
Sorry but I do t want to visit you at home. Further I don't have to, I am in a civilized country where supermarkets are required to give their surplus away for free
Wow this is insane as in wonderful! Where do you live I want to move there! Best I've seen around here is lower price on stuff I "save" (as in buying yesterdays bread or greens for a lower price) fully on the markets whim, but "required to give away" is really next level! Do you know how that went through, how I pitch this to my politicians?
At least in my local community supermarkets started to give away food that was on the best before date or with a high discount (30-90%) depends heavily on the cost though. Bananas for example are often free while oranges are just heavily reduced. Cheese and similar products have the lowest reduction in my experience.
The grapes of wrath was written 100.years ago. The fact that capitalism is still considered the only solution (other than the state sanctioned anarchists like Chomsky) is testament to the concept that the ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class.
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
Thankfully due to this show, at least Woolworths (Safeway) and maybe some other stores brought out a range of fruit and vegetables called "The Odd Bunch" that are cheaper and less "perfect". It's a small step, but at least it's a start.
My city (in Canada) mostly has Save-On-Foods that sells "Not-So-Perfect" frozen blueberries which are a couple dollars cheaper than normal frozen blueberries. Pretty sure Thrifties (Sobeys) sells the same.
“The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all,” Steinbeck wrote. “Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground…a million people hungry, needing the fruit — and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains.”
Finally read this book last week. Needs to be a required read for every human. Basically every sentence had me nodding furiously in agreement . really shows how fucking evil rich people are even back then when they had WAYYYYYYYYYYY less than they do now.
But if you read Steinbeck you might have a spark of empathy or introspection and we can't have that. Or even have thoughts about socialism, gasp! God forbid.
My grocery store has a "imperfect produce" section, where they have funny shaped bananas, oranges that are not round, that sort of thing. Really cheap, and just as tasty.
Here lidl has boxes of random fruit and vegetables that don't meet the pretty standard for like 25czk now probably more. But now I see them rarely. They were great when I wanted to make soup or something.
Are there actually people who think capitalism is efficient? Like sure it's not Soviet level beaurocracy inefficiency but I wouldn't stake my life saving medicine on this system if I had any other option
Totally separate from the capitalism part, isn't composting a portion of what is grown to return nutrients and maintain soil health a thing? Along with crop rotation, I thought composting the unwanted or unusable products either through a feed-to-manure or organic waste composting method was part of healthy arable land management.
The capitalism part is certainly creating a larger "unwanted/unusable" percentage, but is there any information on how it is impacting overall land sustainability? Monocropping is 100% known to be killing farmland, so I am wondering what the current state of agricultural research is around this.
Last time, I was in the store, the last non-Chiquita bananas were two bunches with basically half-sized bananas.
And well, it did cross my mind that I'm basically paying extra for the "packaging" that way, as they have almost more peel than pulp. (The bigger the banana[^1] the less surface area it has, relative to the volume.)
But on the other hand, I can portion those small bananas better, so there's ups and downs, for sure. Which means, it's actually quite fair that they have some smaller bananas in the store, too.
A tetrix is a fractal-like object that approaches zero volume and keeps the same surface area as the number of iterations increase. (I only know about it because I saw a 3d printable version of it on a YT video the other day).
Capitalism (free markets really) optimize for low cost and price. Waste is not something it optimizes for.
Capitalism being efficient is doubtful, but it certainly is effective at producing a lot of bananas, so you can buy cheap bananas around the globe all year long.
That was the original gimmick behind the subscription service "imperfect produce". I gave it a try for a while (back before they pivoted to being a normal grocery subscription) and found out that a lot of this "perfectly good" produce is also completely devoid of flavor. Another problem is that "minor cosmetic defects" often means the skin of fruits is splitting so they mold within 48 hours of arriving.
Devoid of flavor is just a huge problem with our modern farming practices.
But agreed that instead of getting perfectly good produce that looks funny it felt like I was getting stuff that had been crushed under the pallets and or had mold or splitting issues.
We just don't have an actual infrastructure for getting actual bulk waste produce to people who could use it. We really need food halls.
unfortunately what efficiency means to these people doesn't include no waste. i would happily buy a weird looking banana but many wouldn't. and it costs money to transport banana and display them on shelves.
It'd be less of a problem if there was no cost to throwing edible food thrown away. That excess grown food decomposes and releases potent greenhouse gasses; an externality that the people deciding how much food to grow don't have to pay. The entire motive for not selling all your crops is to maximize profit, and profit has no regard for how it serves society.
It's all too often left out of the conversation, but part of the feedback loop for chasing profits are the opportunity costs when trying to attract investment capital. The capitalist class being able to freely invest wherever they want causes them to demand corner cutting, force exploitative practices, and encourage everyone to ignore externalities. Capitalism is not simply events and practices that can be viewed in isolation, but an interconnected system where bullshit in one industry does not stay in one industry. People not being able to grasp such a large and interconnected system is part of why it is so hard to oppose.
It's viscerally upsetting to view food being wasted when so many cannot afford to eat properly. Even though throwing away food it is not the direct reason for mass starvation, it is a cog in the machine that creates it. For that reason, people drawing the line between the two is not as irrational as you think.
If you see food on the other side of the world being wasted fret not because having it shipped to you would be dramatically worse. The meme doesn't make sense it's okay to call out things that are wrong doesn't say anything about me other than I am an asshole.
The straightness of the bananas aren't the issue, it's the waste created by throwing out perfectly good bananas for not being purportedly aesthetically pleasing enough.
Nobody is forcing you to buy a straight banana, but you are being forced to have your only banana option be curved.
Honestly, it doesn’t need to be every banana, I imagine some are irredeemably damaged at some point during production or are so outside of banana norms that they look as though they may be spoiled.
Allowing a higher percentage of abnormal bananas to go to market would give people the option to buy them, but it wouldn’t remove their ability to buy normal bananas.
Allowing a higher percentage of abnormal bananas to go to market would give people the option to buy them, but it wouldn’t remove their ability to buy normal bananas.
The core of it is this:
You have a crop. The "pretty" ones get sold to supermarkets at the highest price (who in turn only want to buy the "pretty" ones because they sell best). The less pretty ones get sold to manufactured food companies, where the processing hides that they weren't "pretty" - diced veggies for canned vegetable soup, fruit purees, that kind of thing. There's not enough demand here to sell all the "ugly" ones. There's also online markets that sell "ugly" produce, like Misfits Market - they buy it cheaper than supermarkets and can resell cheaper than supermarkets as a result. Depending on the crop, some lower quality ones might get sold as animal feed. The rest is running out of people who want to buy it.
There's not enough demand here to sell all the "ugly" ones.
I’m not sure that you (and the banana merchants) are correct about this assumption. In this thread, there are many people who want to buy ugly produce, and not all want it at a reduced price.
If there were, the markets that specialize in "ugly" produce would do much, much better, have higher demand and buy up more of the produce to fill it.
That 40% is what's left after supermarkets buy all the "pretty" bananas they think they can sell, manufactured food companies buy up what they can use for stuff like purees, sliced banana going into various products, that sort of thing and "ugly" produce sellers (places like Misfits Market) buying up what they think they can sell. I don't think bananas are used in animal feed but for crops where that's a common use some of it gets sold for that. Broadly, each of these involves the farmer making less money per unit weight than the previous and selling less desirable product to each.
And yet people here are perfectly happy to eat ugly produce and expressing an unmet demand. The complaints about ugly produce markets here are all about spoiled or tasteless food, not appearance.
If banana farmers shipped 90% of the bananas they grew, they could reduce the share of their land dedicated to bananas and either broaden their repertoire of crops or allow the gained area to rewild.
Bananas are particularly sensitive to disease, so having borders of other crops would help prevent spread between banana plantations.
It is the most efficient economic system. Why do you think an economic system is supposed to avoid waste, sensibly distribute resources, or care for the environment?
Food waste is good so we have more stuff than we need. Otherwise when the next volcano erupts it's famine time again (just look it up, it has happened at least 10 times during the last 2000 years and each time it caused a famine).
there's a continuous transition between growing current amounts of food and growing nothing at all. partial outage of sunlight doesn't mean that there's 0 food being grown.
I can see your reasoning, but I don't see how with no sunlight and scorched earth, more land dedicated to growing food that won't grow on it is helpful. In that situation only indoor hydroponic operations stand a chance and only as long as they can get clean water and maintain power.
Well how to put it ... You know when a volcano erupts it will not be instantly and completely dark. It's just dimmer like when it is cloudy. Therefore plants will still get say 50% light. If there rly is no sunlight, we will just freeze anyway
122 Comments
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 65 pts · 157d
40% thrown away does not necessarily imply all others are better.
Normally imperfect produce goes to processing plants (juice, cans, pies etc.) but I'm not sure if there's any significant market for banana chunks/puree.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 24 pts · 157d
There are some frozen fruit mixes that use banana chunks. Also some that use frozen puree in pre-measured shapes.
Eq0@literature.cafe · 21 pts · 157d
Banana juice is a thing, and banana chips and such. Probably too small of a market to repurpose all the uncool bananas :/
Rinox@feddit.it · 3 pts · 155d
Banana chips are usually made with cooking bananas, also known as plátano in south America. It's a different fruit, much less sweet, usually eaten after cooking and before the ripening is complete (plátano verde).
It's quite uncommon in Europe and NA, but it's a staple of the central and south American cuisine
jrs100000@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 157d
Animal feed as well.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 10 pts · 156d
They figured out ways to cram all the subsidized surplus soy and almonds nobody wants into every conceivable product, they could certainly manage to do so with ugly bananas.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 2 pts · 155d
Our local popular brand of fish sticks has banana puree as an ingredient. It's not noticeable at all, at most it changes the texture of the batter a little.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 155d
There's a difference between a market and a significant market.
kieron115@startrek.website · 1 pts · 156d
baby food maybe?
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 52 pts · 157d
It’s really crazy how cheap bananas are. They’re flown in from tropical countries and are at least half the cost of local in season produce. And they’re throwing away so many at every stage of production.
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 157d
Bananas come by slow boat.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 156d
Yes, slow Banana boat.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 156d
Assuming the front doesn't fall off.
Fishnoodle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 157d
I feel the same way about chicken and eggs. Like all the feed, the time, and effort of raising them, the cost to transport, them, kill and cook them, etc.
And I can get a dozen eggs for a couple of bucks, or an entire rotisserie chicken for like $6
Zier@fedia.io · 44 pts · 156d
Imagine if they actually sold the whole crop to stores. Bananas would be $0.10 a pound. You would never be hungry.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 156d
See, you've found the issue they're trying to avoid.
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org · 7 pts · 156d
That and buyers preferring "pretty"/consistent produce, which means supermarkets only want to buy produce to spec because the other stuff won't sell as well, shelf space is limited and it costs the supermarket more to waste unsold food than to just not buy food unlikely to sell. There are online markets out there that sell "ugly" produce that's not to spec, but they aren't broadly popular enough to make a huge dent in waste.
angrystego@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 156d
So if I understand corrextly, if the bananas got into shops, they would just be thrown out later and with additional costs.
0tan0d@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 156d
*buyers with money. Poor and hungry folk dont get a shit of the food isn't the perfect shape.
bufalo1973@piefed.social · 2 pts · 152d
That could be a good use. Send tons of those bananas to food banks and food kitchens.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 156d
actually you know what ... i would probably buy food that looks funny simply for the giggles in it ... i'm kinda bored of normativity; "designers" (advertisement people) invent useless garbage new patterns all the time to "mix it up and keep it entertaining" ... why not just use non-conformous food that naturally grows that way anyways?
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 24 pts · 156d
It wouldn't decrease prices quite as much as you'd think, since so much of the cost of a banana is transportation, which they don't do with the ones they throw out. They should still do it, obviously, and then transport them on trains to reduce transportation cost as well.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 156d
iirc transport on ship is actually cheaper than trains i think due to not needing rails and also ships being fucking huge which means low surface area to volume ratio, so you need less steel to build them.
also how do you build a train line from south america to europe?
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 156d
I was comparing to the shipping via trucks that's done in the US. You do of course need some other method to get them across oceans.
AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 156d
A really really big tunnel? It worked for the chunnel.
Fully automated luxury gay train communism!
howrar@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 156d
Do you know where we can find data on this? The cost of each step that brings bananas to our homes.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 13 pts · 156d
Good old artificial scarcity
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 156d
id imagine there's a demand for at minimum specialty stores that sell those 40% of bananas
khendron@piefed.ca · -1 pts · 156d
Bananas are already pretty cheap. I think they are the cheapest fruit in the grocery store.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 157d
Humans have produced enough food, and had the capability to feed every human in the world for over 500 years. Every famine you've seen in the news, all of them, has been caused by keeping food from being delivered to those that are hungry.
ICastFist@programming.dev · 39 pts · 156d
Not 500, more like 120 or so years. First thanks to the invention of refrigerated logistics (essential for transporting foodstuffs without them spoiling during the trip) and then thanks to the Haber-Bosch process of extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere, which is essential for industrial fertilizers.
Famines since ~1930 could've been avoided if the "waste" surplus was redirected
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 156d
We've moved preserved food since the discovery of salt. Transport, refrigeration and fertilizer technologies just let our population explode within the last century. The population levels prior to those technologies was more than supported by the transportation and food production capabilities of the time.
arrow74@lemmy.zip · 21 pts · 156d
That's just historically untrue. 500 years ago we didn't have much of the technology needed for reliable harvest. Many farms were still highly dependant on rain. No rain, no crops. A late freeze, no crops. Locusts, no crops. You starve.That simple.
This doesn't include the absolute necessity of artificial fertizlier in maintaining the modern population.
Maybe your statement could be true if we had the ability to move crops from areas not expirencing a disaster that could have fixed it, but would have been very difficult and required a global effort. So technically humanity may have produced enough food, but there was not a real way to move it. Even ignoring profit incentives that control logistics and assuming a altruistic system of redistribution, it could take weeks for messages to arrive in areas that did have food. Then it would take weeks to move it. No refrigeration, the fastest you could move is horse.
Seems very unlikely
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 156d
The fastest you'd need to move is by horse or ship. Food preservation has been a thing since the discovery of salt. And we didn't need artificial fertilizer centuries ago, because we didn't need to support this many people on limited land, that's a very recent problem. Also cities grew near water for a reason, that's how they got their food. Ships moving food supplies.
arrow74@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 156d
Right so how are we increasing salt production? You'll need more workers, which leaves less people available for farming. Could salt production even be scaled to match that demand given the technology? You'll now need an increased network capacity to move the extra salt. More horses, more pots, more baskets, more drivers.
What about places without access by water?
Artificial fertilizer does however allow for a reliable surplus. Something necessary for a redistribution network. You need some kind of fertilizer and natural sources for scalable farming are rare.
You've created a fictional understanding of logistics that sums up to "just move the stuff" without considering the consequences.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 156d
You're misunderstanding my statement, there is no need for increased production, because it already existed. There is no need for an expanded distribution system, it already existed. There is no need for more of anything, because it was already sitting there, just going to somewhere else. The only changes needed were which wagon, or which ship, the only consequences were who made how much profit, and who got credit for it.
arrow74@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 156d
Oh no I understand your statements, it's just they are inherently wrong.
Honestly if you said in the last 200 years (maybe even 300) we wouldn't be arguing. I think you're severally over-estimating the surplus created by pre-industrial farmers and the amount of the economy engaged in luxury or profiteering. Most people then produced what they needed and little more. Yes there were portions of the economy tooled to serve the needs of the elite, but I'm not convinced that is enough labor to completely eliminate hunger even if redistributed to production and logistical networks.
We're not even getting into how common slavery was for agricultural production. If we are creating a new system to ensure everyone is fed how do we deal with that?
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 156d
I've made a simple historically verifiable statement, if you had any case what so ever, you'd be able to point to a counter example.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 156d
Can you provide a source then?
arrow74@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 156d
You did the opposite. You insisted that your version was true and that re-tooling an entire supply chain is easy.
Your entire arguement is hypotheticals with no source.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 13 pts · 156d
I'd assume that intercontinental food shipping would have been rather difficult in the 1500s.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 156d
Swallows could grip it by the husk?
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 156d
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 156d
Wouldn't have been needed, production was distributed enough with populations. And crop collapses were contained to regional problems.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 30 pts · 156d
Exactly, nothing about capitalism is efficient and it never was. Capitalism is brutally effective at producing large quantities of stuff, but that doesn't mean the waste is mitigated at all. In fact, the waste correlates with production.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · -6 pts · 156d
Food waste is good so we have more stuff than we need. Otherwise when the next volcano erupts it's famine time again (just look it up, it has happened at least 10 times during the last 2000 years and each time it caused a famine).
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
harrison_fnord@reddthat.com · 8 pts · 156d
That's what a surplus is for not foodwaste.
Liz@midwest.social · 1 pts · 155d
What's the difference if your food has an expiration date?
DeadDigger@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 156d
Every food surplus is foodwaste and vice versa
harrison_fnord@reddthat.com · 5 pts · 156d
Definitely no.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 155d
Okay well you can go to the landfill and eat from there then you'll never pay for food ever again
DeadDigger@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 154d
Sorry but I do t want to visit you at home. Further I don't have to, I am in a civilized country where supermarkets are required to give their surplus away for free
micek@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 154d
Wow this is insane as in wonderful! Where do you live I want to move there! Best I've seen around here is lower price on stuff I "save" (as in buying yesterdays bread or greens for a lower price) fully on the markets whim, but "required to give away" is really next level! Do you know how that went through, how I pitch this to my politicians?
DeadDigger@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 152d
Well I kinda don't want to, due to minimizing my digital footprint but here is a paper of different states that did it and it even has some recommendations for lawmakers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368501454_Anti-food_Waste_Laws_A_Comparative_Analysis
At least in my local community supermarkets started to give away food that was on the best before date or with a high discount (30-90%) depends heavily on the cost though. Bananas for example are often free while oranges are just heavily reduced. Cheese and similar products have the lowest reduction in my experience.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 153d
Yeah and surplus is still not waste
LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml · 26 pts · 156d
The grapes of wrath was written 100.years ago. The fact that capitalism is still considered the only solution (other than the state sanctioned anarchists like Chomsky) is testament to the concept that the ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class.
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 156d
who has sanctioned chomsky
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 156d
Epstein apparently.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 156d
Lenin wrote about old capitalism vs new capitalism.
Yet we have people today claiming the same thing with 1950s-80s vs now.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 24 pts · 156d
― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 156d
That really sucks but "highly edible" is a very funny phrase.
NightmareQueenJune@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 156d
I am too, highly edible.
dellish@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 156d
Thankfully due to this show, at least Woolworths (Safeway) and maybe some other stores brought out a range of fruit and vegetables called "The Odd Bunch" that are cheaper and less "perfect". It's a small step, but at least it's a start.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 156d
My city (in Canada) mostly has Save-On-Foods that sells "Not-So-Perfect" frozen blueberries which are a couple dollars cheaper than normal frozen blueberries. Pretty sure Thrifties (Sobeys) sells the same.
isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 156d
Loblaws has their "Naturally Imperfect" line.
dellish@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 156d
And for those who don't know Craig Reucassel is also one of the founding members of The Chaser satire team.
derry@midwest.social · 17 pts · 157d
“The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all,” Steinbeck wrote. “Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground…a million people hungry, needing the fruit — and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains.”
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 156d
Finally read this book last week. Needs to be a required read for every human. Basically every sentence had me nodding furiously in agreement . really shows how fucking evil rich people are even back then when they had WAYYYYYYYYYYY less than they do now.
derry@midwest.social · 8 pts · 156d
But if you read Steinbeck you might have a spark of empathy or introspection and we can't have that. Or even have thoughts about socialism, gasp! God forbid.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 156d
Ha exactly. I told my friend who is a big Rand fan they need to read it.
I actually like Rands books myself. But the ideology falls apart with a modicum of introspection.
derry@midwest.social · 3 pts · 156d
I'd recommend east of Eden and winter of our discontent as well. Especially the latter if you're in the US.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 156d
Gonna get those for sure
Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 156d
What book is this? Sounds like something Steinbeck would write.
derry@midwest.social · 4 pts · 156d
Grapes of Wrath. Good catch, as he wrote that book!
khendron@piefed.ca · 15 pts · 156d
My grocery store has a "imperfect produce" section, where they have funny shaped bananas, oranges that are not round, that sort of thing. Really cheap, and just as tasty.
Emi@ani.social · 12 pts · 157d
Here lidl has boxes of random fruit and vegetables that don't meet the pretty standard for like 25czk now probably more. But now I see them rarely. They were great when I wanted to make soup or something.
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 156d
xkbx@startrek.website · 11 pts · 157d
oh banana, how i suffer with thee
StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 156d
Are there actually people who think capitalism is efficient? Like sure it's not Soviet level beaurocracy inefficiency but I wouldn't stake my life saving medicine on this system if I had any other option
edgemaster72@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 156d
Efficient at creating oligarchs and robber barons
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 156d
Capitalism is only efficient if it's highly regulated. See the Scandinavian countries being successful at controlling capitalism.
Gork@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 157d
This is bananas!
snoons@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 156d
Them apples really get me sometimes frfr
Narauko@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 156d
Totally separate from the capitalism part, isn't composting a portion of what is grown to return nutrients and maintain soil health a thing? Along with crop rotation, I thought composting the unwanted or unusable products either through a feed-to-manure or organic waste composting method was part of healthy arable land management.
The capitalism part is certainly creating a larger "unwanted/unusable" percentage, but is there any information on how it is impacting overall land sustainability? Monocropping is 100% known to be killing farmland, so I am wondering what the current state of agricultural research is around this.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 156d
Probably not the wisest behavior when there's a fungal infection going around.
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 156d
Last time, I was in the store, the last non-Chiquita bananas were two bunches with basically half-sized bananas.
And well, it did cross my mind that I'm basically paying extra for the "packaging" that way, as they have almost more peel than pulp. (The bigger the banana[^1] the less surface area it has, relative to the volume.)
But on the other hand, I can portion those small bananas better, so there's ups and downs, for sure. Which means, it's actually quite fair that they have some smaller bananas in the store, too.
[^1]: Or any other object.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 156d
You're going to piss off a lot of mathematicians with that footnote lol
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 156d
Hmm, interesting. For what object is this not correct? And does it exist in Euclidian 3D space? 😅
jdr@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 156d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_horn
kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 156d
Depends on how you define bigger and object. Picture a sea urchin, if the spikes get longer without the center growing...
sobchak@programming.dev · 3 pts · 156d
A tetrix is a fractal-like object that approaches zero volume and keeps the same surface area as the number of iterations increase. (I only know about it because I saw a 3d printable version of it on a YT video the other day).
AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 156d
Yes, but at a set number of iterations, scaling the object will cause volume to grow faster proportionally than surface area.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 155d
For daily objects, something like a sponge, or even a shape like a waffle can increase surface area while reducing volume
aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 155d
People will be picky under any economic system, assuming they aren’t starving
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 157d
Capitalism (free markets really) optimize for low cost and price. Waste is not something it optimizes for.
Capitalism being efficient is doubtful, but it certainly is effective at producing a lot of bananas, so you can buy cheap bananas around the globe all year long.
Cherries@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 156d
Capitalism optimizes for low cost and high prices. Waste helps maintain high prices, so capitalism absolutely encourages waste.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 3 pts · 157d
I wonder if i can buy cheaper fruit by asking them if i can buy the things that super markets don't want;
I should try a day
the_artic_one@piefed.social · 4 pts · 156d
That was the original gimmick behind the subscription service "imperfect produce". I gave it a try for a while (back before they pivoted to being a normal grocery subscription) and found out that a lot of this "perfectly good" produce is also completely devoid of flavor. Another problem is that "minor cosmetic defects" often means the skin of fruits is splitting so they mold within 48 hours of arriving.
Krauerking@lemy.lol · 3 pts · 156d
Devoid of flavor is just a huge problem with our modern farming practices.
But agreed that instead of getting perfectly good produce that looks funny it felt like I was getting stuff that had been crushed under the pallets and or had mold or splitting issues.
We just don't have an actual infrastructure for getting actual bulk waste produce to people who could use it. We really need food halls.
fizzle@quokk.au · 2 pts · 157d
There are shops that sell this stuff.
Green grocers et cetera are usually focused more on local produce than conforming produce.
Woolies doesn't have a secret stash of straight bananas you can buy for cheap.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 1 pts · 156d
I never seen a shop like that tbh, i don't think they even exist here.
Well, not if you don't ask them to keep some, just ask them or if you know a farmer/a friend of yours know one it's even better then
fizzle@quokk.au · 2 pts · 156d
These bananas aren't discarded from your local woolies.
qyron@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 157d
I do not believe there is no other way to make use of those bananas.
nialv7@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 157d
unfortunately what efficiency means to these people doesn't include no waste. i would happily buy a weird looking banana but many wouldn't. and it costs money to transport banana and display them on shelves.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 155d
Bad logic because evidently it is so efficient it can waste things on visual standards alone... Lemmy lemmy lemmy what will we do with you...
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 155d
It'd be less of a problem if there was no cost to throwing edible food thrown away. That excess grown food decomposes and releases potent greenhouse gasses; an externality that the people deciding how much food to grow don't have to pay. The entire motive for not selling all your crops is to maximize profit, and profit has no regard for how it serves society.
It's all too often left out of the conversation, but part of the feedback loop for chasing profits are the opportunity costs when trying to attract investment capital. The capitalist class being able to freely invest wherever they want causes them to demand corner cutting, force exploitative practices, and encourage everyone to ignore externalities. Capitalism is not simply events and practices that can be viewed in isolation, but an interconnected system where bullshit in one industry does not stay in one industry. People not being able to grasp such a large and interconnected system is part of why it is so hard to oppose.
It's viscerally upsetting to view food being wasted when so many cannot afford to eat properly. Even though throwing away food it is not the direct reason for mass starvation, it is a cog in the machine that creates it. For that reason, people drawing the line between the two is not as irrational as you think.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 155d
If you see food on the other side of the world being wasted fret not because having it shipped to you would be dramatically worse. The meme doesn't make sense it's okay to call out things that are wrong doesn't say anything about me other than I am an asshole.
fizzle@quokk.au · 2 pts · 157d
Is capitalism really the problem here?
Is there another system that would bend straight bananas?
Or do we just force people to eat approved food. That sounds a bit shit if im honest.
Sewerking@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 156d
The straightness of the bananas aren't the issue, it's the waste created by throwing out perfectly good bananas for not being purportedly aesthetically pleasing enough.
Nobody is forcing you to buy a straight banana, but you are being forced to have your only banana option be curved.
fizzle@quokk.au · 1 pts · 156d
You seem to have missed my point.
Any solution requires all bananas to be consumed, including the less desirable ones.
You could produce less, but all produced nanas desirable or not need to be consumed lest they be wasted.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 156d
Honestly, it doesn’t need to be every banana, I imagine some are irredeemably damaged at some point during production or are so outside of banana norms that they look as though they may be spoiled.
Allowing a higher percentage of abnormal bananas to go to market would give people the option to buy them, but it wouldn’t remove their ability to buy normal bananas.
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org · 0 pts · 156d
The core of it is this:
You have a crop. The "pretty" ones get sold to supermarkets at the highest price (who in turn only want to buy the "pretty" ones because they sell best). The less pretty ones get sold to manufactured food companies, where the processing hides that they weren't "pretty" - diced veggies for canned vegetable soup, fruit purees, that kind of thing. There's not enough demand here to sell all the "ugly" ones. There's also online markets that sell "ugly" produce, like Misfits Market - they buy it cheaper than supermarkets and can resell cheaper than supermarkets as a result. Depending on the crop, some lower quality ones might get sold as animal feed. The rest is running out of people who want to buy it.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 156d
I’m not sure that you (and the banana merchants) are correct about this assumption. In this thread, there are many people who want to buy ugly produce, and not all want it at a reduced price.
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org · 0 pts · 156d
If there were, the markets that specialize in "ugly" produce would do much, much better, have higher demand and buy up more of the produce to fill it.
That 40% is what's left after supermarkets buy all the "pretty" bananas they think they can sell, manufactured food companies buy up what they can use for stuff like purees, sliced banana going into various products, that sort of thing and "ugly" produce sellers (places like Misfits Market) buying up what they think they can sell. I don't think bananas are used in animal feed but for crops where that's a common use some of it gets sold for that. Broadly, each of these involves the farmer making less money per unit weight than the previous and selling less desirable product to each.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 156d
And yet people here are perfectly happy to eat ugly produce and expressing an unmet demand. The complaints about ugly produce markets here are all about spoiled or tasteless food, not appearance.
If banana farmers shipped 90% of the bananas they grew, they could reduce the share of their land dedicated to bananas and either broaden their repertoire of crops or allow the gained area to rewild.
Bananas are particularly sensitive to disease, so having borders of other crops would help prevent spread between banana plantations.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 156d
Kind of like some sort of Food and Drug Administration?
And let's be perfectly clear what you mean by "approved food" here. We're talking about bananas that weren't "bent enough".
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 156d
I want to know what these non-standard bananas look like!
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 156d
It is the most efficient economic system. Why do you think an economic system is supposed to avoid waste, sensibly distribute resources, or care for the environment?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · -7 pts · 156d
Food waste is good so we have more stuff than we need. Otherwise when the next volcano erupts it's famine time again (just look it up, it has happened at least 10 times during the last 2000 years and each time it caused a famine).
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
alekwithak@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 156d
Throwing bananas away doesn't help us when we can't grow anything.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 156d
there's a continuous transition between growing current amounts of food and growing nothing at all. partial outage of sunlight doesn't mean that there's 0 food being grown.
alekwithak@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 156d
I can see your reasoning, but I don't see how with no sunlight and scorched earth, more land dedicated to growing food that won't grow on it is helpful. In that situation only indoor hydroponic operations stand a chance and only as long as they can get clean water and maintain power.
DeadDigger@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 156d
Well how to put it ... You know when a volcano erupts it will not be instantly and completely dark. It's just dimmer like when it is cloudy. Therefore plants will still get say 50% light. If there rly is no sunlight, we will just freeze anyway