This produce used to be readily available to food banks but now that “ugly” and “imperfect” produce can turn a profit, they are less available to those in need.
So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food.
I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else?
That is even assuming Imperfect Foods is negatively affecting these food banks. The New Food Economy seems to think so, but Imperfect Foods disagrees.
I don't know who to believe, but I also don't think it matters. My takeaway is that the food bank model for donating to the poor is less viable now. We'll have to find a better model moving forward.
> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else?
One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?
I think op's point is that ugly food business is based on peoples charitable instincts, while those same customers are not aware the food would not in fact be wasted. so the consumers are buying it for wrong reasons
I think its just an observation of the outcome of a real world change. People put effort into reducing food waste and the outcome is reduced food for the poor. I think the question is, was it worth it?
Imperfect produce has managed to create a market for food that was previously not able to be sold. Good for them.
Does this mean that we may have to restructure social programs as that food becomes sold rather than donated? Sure might. That's ok though.
I'd also like to clearly point out that the author misquotes their source for the amount of food donated. The California Association of Food Banks states that they have donated 164 million pounds of fruits and vegetables. That's not 164 million PER YEAR. That's 164 million since they were founded in 1995 - or 7.1 million a year. Additionally, the Imperfect produce comment saying 150,000 lbs specifically calls out "From California farmers". While the food banks numbers are simply totals (they likely purchase and redistribute, as well as take donations from out of state sources). There's probably fudging on both sides, but I find this article fairly disingenuous.
I see nothing wrong with: selling something if a paying market is found for that, instead of giving it away for free.
I do see something wrong with: creating that paying market by lying.
I suspect most of those conscientious people who think they are helping farmers and reducing food waste would not be paying for this produce if they knew that it was being taken away from poor people.
This happened previously with "chocolate" diamonds. Those undesirable diamonds were often used in industrial applications. When jewelry stores started promoting them, the cost of "ugly" diamonds went up, making some other applications more expensive.
Also, I do a fair amount of work with a local neighborhood center that has as a part of their mission meeting the basic needs of local residents. I haven't been there during fresh produce bank they run, but I've seen pictures and been told by the management that they get some very high quality produce. Apparently the local markets aren't that great at predicting the desire for a product, so they get some pretty high quality produce from every chain in the city.
Yeah, this whole piece is from someone with an axe to grind. I get it, Beet Box was more community focused and basically a non-profit masquerading as a startup. It's natural they'd get stomped by a real startup, but in this case, the competition is literally taking trash and making people eat it. It's great! What could be wrong with that? We waste like 40% of all food made in this country.
The author's best arguments aren't articulated well. I will try and paraphrase.
Essentially, Imperfect Produce is buying scraps from medium to larger farms and marketing it to people that would normally buy produce from small farmers. They sell you on the concept of buying vegetables and helping the environment and farmers at the same time. They do this by claiming that the food would go to waste if you didn't buy it and they also imply through marketing materials that the food comes from quaint little ma and pa farms.
The thrust of the argument is not "boo, capitalism!", it's that it is deceptive marketing and it's hurting small farmers. Because 1) the food would not go to waste if it wasn't purchased and 2) the food they are selling does not come from small farmers but it's marketed like it does and it's marketed to the same people that would normally buy from small farmers
>Imperfect produce has managed to create a market for food that was previously not able to be sold. Good for them.
Like when Robin Hood was introduced to capitalism and started “robbing the hood.” Nothing like taking food from the poor and selling it to the rich, just need that good market...I know tell them they are saving the world by buying this food and otherwise it would be waste.
Think of all these “untapped” markets startups can disrupt like soup kitchens and food stamps. These morons out here giving food away when they are just one round of VC money away from creating new markets.
That’s probably because you are not an Oakland hipster who attended a liberal college }:)
Jokes aside, the article does read like a buzzword soup, and looks like a low blow from someone who is getting outcompited fair and square.
I would also like to see an analysis of the impact in consumer prices, since imperfect food is making a net loss for producers into a net gain.
If these producers are competing this should lower the prices, what could potentially reduce the need for donated food altogether (I know it’s very optimistic, but hey, a man can dream)
"Our venture, and ventures like ours, which rely on redistributing food waste, cannot succeed if people waste less food. So please waste more food."
Talk about putting the cart before the horse. I have no problem with saying, "that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused." But someone's got their head turned right around if they think that a logical corollary is, "and that food should never be used, because we're redistributing it."
Beyond the first paragraph which just states that their food would otherwise end up as trash, they don't actually reply to any of the claims in the parent article.
The evidence they provide is broad macro-level statistics about how much food is wasted, but not about where the food they're selling comes from.
The parent article claims specifically that they are getting their food from sources that would otherwise be going to food banks.
The fact that this "reply" repeats talking points with country-level statistics instead of directly addressing the question leaves me feeling suspicious of Imperfect Produce.
I wonder if this has to do with location as well. This reply cites a food pantry in Chicago, an area of the country that doesn't produce much produce. The farms in Illinois mostly grow corn and soybeans that feed cows. The article is in California, which is where a much more substantial portion of produce is grown.
There is some very disingenous sounding hand-waving going on in this article - and it appears to have been successful! Most of the commenters here seem to have come away with the idea that the problem is that Imperfect Produce is taking food that would have otherwise gone to food banks. While the article never claims thus, I think the misunderstanding is intentional on the part of the author. The key point to me is this:
> Three years later and with a 30-percent drop in customers
and
> We lost customers, a lot of customers.
With a more careful reading, one can see that the "loss" to food banks is because BeetBox is not making as much money now that they have competition with better marketing. In fact the article even says as much:
> subscriptions have fallen so much we’ve had to cut back on many of the food justice programs that our CSA proceeds had previously supported.
Sounds a lot less like Imperfect Produce is an evil monster here, and a lot more like they're just a more succesful competitor.
I used Imperfect Produce for several months and I wonder how much of it was actually 'imperfect.' Most of it was labeled 'surplus,' as the imperfection, and came in looking identical to the grocery store.
I ended up cancelling my subscription after I did the math and it was slightly more expensive than going to the grocery store, and their selection was narrow and seemed to rotate between the same items. Also almost none of it was local to my region--just like a normal grocery store supply chain.
"Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus 'ugly' produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free."
People are complaining because a hidden subsidy (from government and other food buyers to the food banks) has been removed.
I don't like seeing groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that.
> I don't like seeing groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that.
I'd prefer a better solution, but when one isn't available (and likely not forthcoming), needs of real people outweigh my economic principles: These people need food.
It's the same in engineering: As much as we would wish otherwise, sometimes the 'right' solution isn't available and we need to deliver, so we provide an imperfect solution that works.
It’s crazy the contortions americans go through to avoid having welfare while still trying to have welfare. But god forbid we just have actual welfare.
Been living here 4 years, still don’t get it. Prob never will.
I’m supposed to only buy expensive produce so the cheap stuff can be left for those less fortunate? Why don’t you just use some of the exorbitant taxes I pay to help the less fortunate directly? Smh
> I don't like seeing groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that.
And then the problem never gets fixed. You argue against this practice with the reasoning that the "income problem" should be solved directly. Simultaneously, others argue (loudly) against solving the "income problem" directly with the reasoning that practices like this are the answer. At every point, there's an alternative that can be used as an excuse to totally avoid solving or ameliorating the problem.
If I'm throwing something in the trash because it is no use to me, it might be a windfall for you if you can snag it and make use of it. But that's what it is, it's a windfall; you shouldn't get dependent on picking my trash and get irate if I stop tossing out the bits you liked to pick.
I was an imperfect customer, frankly it figuratively stunk. I was charged $14-$18 per week for around a pound of produce. It was mostly just overstock. Honestly, weird shaped produce was part of the fun for me. It was always on the brink of going very bad, so ironically even though it was just a pound I often threw some away.
After a few weeks I realized that I could get the same value by simply buying some older produce at my grocery store for much cheaper. I can get a pound from any store here in the Chicago area for around $5 - $6.
Also the "carbon savings" their website gave to me seemed pretty suspect. It seemed they were just spitting an average at me and not doing any hard calculations. It's curious that getting a pound of food each week delivered on a truck could actually be a net positive for the environment. I'm sure they can justify it but the premise itself seems kind of absurd.
I was suckered in by the allure this article talks about. No more fancy food startups for me, let me just focus on using all of what I get from a conventional grocery store.
> Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus “ugly” produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free.
So I feel for the social cause, and I think the business ventures should be much more up-front about what they are and not masquerade as something else, but let's be clear that buy buying this less than perfect produce, they are helping growers, including small growers, by allowing them to capitalize on more of their crop.
Ultimately, if you want your social cause to not be a victim of market forces, you either need to work yourself into the market correctly, divorce yourself form it, or find a segregating line that works.
If they were taking monetary donations, or allowing write-offs of the produce at full price (something that conceivably could be supported through targeted legislation), then they might be more competitive here. But since they relied on drowers giving them produce that had little or not value, which now does have some value, they'll see the market respond like anyone else.
Again, this doesn't excuse businesses masquerading as social causes (which is nothing new, even if it is loathsome in the worse cases), but this article isn't exactly presenting the case in a balanced light either.
"The company does this by commodifying food that would go to the poor for free"
The article provides 0 evidence towards this case. I'm all for listening to this argument, as it is a good one, but are there any facts to support this other than their shrinking user base?
> Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.
But the total beet supply remains unchanged? Affluent customers are now buying the ugly beets, does that mean more pretty beets go unsold? Can they be donated?
> But the total beet supply remains unchanged? Affluent customers are now buying the ugly beets, does that mean more pretty beets go unsold? Can they be donated?
I doubt it. This is fresh produce we're talking about, the unsold "pretty beets" will be offered for sale on grocer shelves until they're close to spoiling and them get trashed as food waste.
One of the probable advantages of the "ugly beets," from the food bank perspective, is that they could affordably get access to them earlier in the supply chain while they were still fresh.
>Affluent customers are now buying the ugly beets, does that mean more pretty beets go unsold? Can they be donated?
Realistically they probably end up on grocer shelves, which are themselves a horrific contributor to food waste. Some small portion of those that will otherwise end up in a dumpster will be redirected to other ends (e.g. 'made fresh' foods offered by various grocers) or donated.
So when I was a kid my family made use of food banks. Now that I'm doing better in life I give a cut of each paycheck to my local food bank (The Alameda County Food Bank). I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient way to get produce delivered to your door, and I still wind up buying some things from the farmers market and co-op. On that note, it is good to know what consequences new business models have on the surrounding community.
I wonder what's better in the long term for the farmers.
Making sure people have food to eat is something society in the US can easily do, I really wonder if the heroic volunteerism surrounding food banks is a good way to do it.
> This corporate-supported agriculture was avidly commodifying agribusiness’ food “waste” and had little to do with supporting the community.
I'm not familiar with the publication's audience, but is emphasizing the word "corporate" supposed to prove a point? Is it taken as given that corporations are evil, and therefore Imperfect Foods is evil?
If those laws need an update, it doesn't seem like a huge deal. There's a lot of support for food assistance programs. I don't see any reason to villainize people trying to reduce food waste.
Is Community Service Agriculture a new social justice version of that, or was there a typo in the article?
CSAs are a great idea for supporting small farms, but adding a social justice mission to an already challenging undertaking seems like biting off too much at one time.
Maybe supermarkets will begin selling ugly produce now, too, since Imperfect Produce is raising awareness. If they had aisles of ugly produce at discount prices, would it really undercut their sales of pretty produce? Maybe they should run experiments, to see if they can make higher profit margins on ugly veggies, even sold at discount prices, since they have bargaining power over what they pay the producers.
[+] [-] CivBase|7 years ago|reply
So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food.
I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else?
That is even assuming Imperfect Foods is negatively affecting these food banks. The New Food Economy seems to think so, but Imperfect Foods disagrees.
https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456...
I don't know who to believe, but I also don't think it matters. My takeaway is that the food bank model for donating to the poor is less viable now. We'll have to find a better model moving forward.
[+] [-] sgift|7 years ago|reply
One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?
[+] [-] SonicSoul|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] menzoic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makotech222|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Pica_soO|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] horsawlarway|7 years ago|reply
Imperfect produce has managed to create a market for food that was previously not able to be sold. Good for them.
Does this mean that we may have to restructure social programs as that food becomes sold rather than donated? Sure might. That's ok though.
I'd also like to clearly point out that the author misquotes their source for the amount of food donated. The California Association of Food Banks states that they have donated 164 million pounds of fruits and vegetables. That's not 164 million PER YEAR. That's 164 million since they were founded in 1995 - or 7.1 million a year. Additionally, the Imperfect produce comment saying 150,000 lbs specifically calls out "From California farmers". While the food banks numbers are simply totals (they likely purchase and redistribute, as well as take donations from out of state sources). There's probably fudging on both sides, but I find this article fairly disingenuous.
[+] [-] kazinator|7 years ago|reply
I do see something wrong with: creating that paying market by lying.
I suspect most of those conscientious people who think they are helping farmers and reducing food waste would not be paying for this produce if they knew that it was being taken away from poor people.
[+] [-] jonlucc|7 years ago|reply
Also, I do a fair amount of work with a local neighborhood center that has as a part of their mission meeting the basic needs of local residents. I haven't been there during fresh produce bank they run, but I've seen pictures and been told by the management that they get some very high quality produce. Apparently the local markets aren't that great at predicting the desire for a product, so they get some pretty high quality produce from every chain in the city.
[+] [-] VonGuard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xg15|7 years ago|reply
> Does this mean that we may have to restructure social programs as that food becomes sold rather than donated? Sure might.
Except the former is already happening, while it's highly uncertain whether or not the latter will happen.
[+] [-] ryanackley|7 years ago|reply
Essentially, Imperfect Produce is buying scraps from medium to larger farms and marketing it to people that would normally buy produce from small farmers. They sell you on the concept of buying vegetables and helping the environment and farmers at the same time. They do this by claiming that the food would go to waste if you didn't buy it and they also imply through marketing materials that the food comes from quaint little ma and pa farms.
The thrust of the argument is not "boo, capitalism!", it's that it is deceptive marketing and it's hurting small farmers. Because 1) the food would not go to waste if it wasn't purchased and 2) the food they are selling does not come from small farmers but it's marketed like it does and it's marketed to the same people that would normally buy from small farmers
[+] [-] calcifer|7 years ago|reply
Said the man who never relied on donated food to survive.
Still, I know I shouldn't be surprised to see this sort of comment on the mother of all capitalist congregations that is HN.
[+] [-] will_brown|7 years ago|reply
Like when Robin Hood was introduced to capitalism and started “robbing the hood.” Nothing like taking food from the poor and selling it to the rich, just need that good market...I know tell them they are saving the world by buying this food and otherwise it would be waste.
Think of all these “untapped” markets startups can disrupt like soup kitchens and food stamps. These morons out here giving food away when they are just one round of VC money away from creating new markets.
[+] [-] xondono|7 years ago|reply
Jokes aside, the article does read like a buzzword soup, and looks like a low blow from someone who is getting outcompited fair and square.
I would also like to see an analysis of the impact in consumer prices, since imperfect food is making a net loss for producers into a net gain.
If these producers are competing this should lower the prices, what could potentially reduce the need for donated food altogether (I know it’s very optimistic, but hey, a man can dream)
[+] [-] arkades|7 years ago|reply
Talk about putting the cart before the horse. I have no problem with saying, "that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused." But someone's got their head turned right around if they think that a logical corollary is, "and that food should never be used, because we're redistributing it."
[+] [-] SatvikBeri|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cowpig|7 years ago|reply
The evidence they provide is broad macro-level statistics about how much food is wasted, but not about where the food they're selling comes from.
The parent article claims specifically that they are getting their food from sources that would otherwise be going to food banks.
The fact that this "reply" repeats talking points with country-level statistics instead of directly addressing the question leaves me feeling suspicious of Imperfect Produce.
[+] [-] neaden|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djrogers|7 years ago|reply
> Three years later and with a 30-percent drop in customers
and
> We lost customers, a lot of customers.
With a more careful reading, one can see that the "loss" to food banks is because BeetBox is not making as much money now that they have competition with better marketing. In fact the article even says as much:
> subscriptions have fallen so much we’ve had to cut back on many of the food justice programs that our CSA proceeds had previously supported.
Sounds a lot less like Imperfect Produce is an evil monster here, and a lot more like they're just a more succesful competitor.
[+] [-] sct202|7 years ago|reply
I ended up cancelling my subscription after I did the math and it was slightly more expensive than going to the grocery store, and their selection was narrow and seemed to rotate between the same items. Also almost none of it was local to my region--just like a normal grocery store supply chain.
[+] [-] jpollock|7 years ago|reply
People are complaining because a hidden subsidy (from government and other food buyers to the food banks) has been removed.
I don't like seeing groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that.
[+] [-] forapurpose|7 years ago|reply
I'd prefer a better solution, but when one isn't available (and likely not forthcoming), needs of real people outweigh my economic principles: These people need food.
It's the same in engineering: As much as we would wish otherwise, sometimes the 'right' solution isn't available and we need to deliver, so we provide an imperfect solution that works.
[+] [-] Swizec|7 years ago|reply
Been living here 4 years, still don’t get it. Prob never will.
I’m supposed to only buy expensive produce so the cheap stuff can be left for those less fortunate? Why don’t you just use some of the exorbitant taxes I pay to help the less fortunate directly? Smh
[+] [-] rhizome|7 years ago|reply
It wasn't a problem before.
[+] [-] 394549|7 years ago|reply
And then the problem never gets fixed. You argue against this practice with the reasoning that the "income problem" should be solved directly. Simultaneously, others argue (loudly) against solving the "income problem" directly with the reasoning that practices like this are the answer. At every point, there's an alternative that can be used as an excuse to totally avoid solving or ameliorating the problem.
[+] [-] gjm11|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrower123|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorpomon|7 years ago|reply
After a few weeks I realized that I could get the same value by simply buying some older produce at my grocery store for much cheaper. I can get a pound from any store here in the Chicago area for around $5 - $6.
Also the "carbon savings" their website gave to me seemed pretty suspect. It seemed they were just spitting an average at me and not doing any hard calculations. It's curious that getting a pound of food each week delivered on a truck could actually be a net positive for the environment. I'm sure they can justify it but the premise itself seems kind of absurd.
I was suckered in by the allure this article talks about. No more fancy food startups for me, let me just focus on using all of what I get from a conventional grocery store.
[+] [-] kbenson|7 years ago|reply
So I feel for the social cause, and I think the business ventures should be much more up-front about what they are and not masquerade as something else, but let's be clear that buy buying this less than perfect produce, they are helping growers, including small growers, by allowing them to capitalize on more of their crop.
Ultimately, if you want your social cause to not be a victim of market forces, you either need to work yourself into the market correctly, divorce yourself form it, or find a segregating line that works.
If they were taking monetary donations, or allowing write-offs of the produce at full price (something that conceivably could be supported through targeted legislation), then they might be more competitive here. But since they relied on drowers giving them produce that had little or not value, which now does have some value, they'll see the market respond like anyone else.
Again, this doesn't excuse businesses masquerading as social causes (which is nothing new, even if it is loathsome in the worse cases), but this article isn't exactly presenting the case in a balanced light either.
[+] [-] wbronitsky|7 years ago|reply
The article provides 0 evidence towards this case. I'm all for listening to this argument, as it is a good one, but are there any facts to support this other than their shrinking user base?
[+] [-] cowpig|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedunangst|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 394549|7 years ago|reply
I doubt it. This is fresh produce we're talking about, the unsold "pretty beets" will be offered for sale on grocer shelves until they're close to spoiling and them get trashed as food waste.
One of the probable advantages of the "ugly beets," from the food bank perspective, is that they could affordably get access to them earlier in the supply chain while they were still fresh.
[+] [-] sithadmin|7 years ago|reply
Realistically they probably end up on grocer shelves, which are themselves a horrific contributor to food waste. Some small portion of those that will otherwise end up in a dumpster will be redirected to other ends (e.g. 'made fresh' foods offered by various grocers) or donated.
[+] [-] Einstalbert|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdavis703|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|7 years ago|reply
Making sure people have food to eat is something society in the US can easily do, I really wonder if the heroic volunteerism surrounding food banks is a good way to do it.
[+] [-] paxy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k2enemy|7 years ago|reply
I'm not familiar with the publication's audience, but is emphasizing the word "corporate" supposed to prove a point? Is it taken as given that corporations are evil, and therefore Imperfect Foods is evil?
[+] [-] nitwit005|7 years ago|reply
If those laws need an update, it doesn't seem like a huge deal. There's a lot of support for food assistance programs. I don't see any reason to villainize people trying to reduce food waste.
[+] [-] rch|7 years ago|reply
https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agricultu...
Is Community Service Agriculture a new social justice version of that, or was there a typo in the article?
CSAs are a great idea for supporting small farms, but adding a social justice mission to an already challenging undertaking seems like biting off too much at one time.
[+] [-] beautifulfreak|7 years ago|reply