
The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement - ericdanielski
https://newfoodeconomy.org/imperfect-produce-ugly-food-waste-commodification-community-supported-agriculture/
======
CivBase
_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.

[https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-
us/articles/11500456...](https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-
us/articles/115004564574-Are-you-taking-produce-that-would-have-gone-to-food-
banks-otherwise-Where-did-this-produce-go-before-Imperfect-started-)

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
> 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?

~~~
lotsofpulp
Instead of adding opacity to the system, I would rather they remove the
subsidies instead.

~~~
avip
You will not have agriculture then. It'll be like not having any industry,
only much worse.

~~~
thebooktocome
We had agriculture before the subsidies.

~~~
tedivm
Agriculture, at least in the US, has always been subsidized. As a country we
used slave labor (free labor) to subsidize agriculture, and then over time we
gave away an epic amount of land to white farmers (via the Land Act of 1820,
the Homestead Act, and the Morrill Act of 1862).

------
horsawlarway
I... see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

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
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.

~~~
gowld
In that case, you should never buy anything, because anything manufactured
might be donated if you hadn't bought it.

~~~
azrael49
In the majority of cases, retailers trash their products (sometimes after
physically destroying them) that go unsold. Even for used items, most people
are too lazy to donate even things in perfect condition

~~~
kazinator
Problem with unsold stuff is that people don't want it at any price. Even poor
people. Before stuff is unsold, it goes on sale for 50% off, or maybe 75% or
more. Poorer people can afford it at those lower price points.

~~~
GFischer
Not always true. Some companies will rather destroy product rather than
undercut themselves (it's a conscious strategy, especially for luxury items).

[https://theoutline.com/post/2602/clothing-companies-are-
tras...](https://theoutline.com/post/2602/clothing-companies-are-trashing-
unsold-merchandise-instead-of-donating-it?zd=1&zi=7gyrfcho)

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/01/07/why_hm_destr...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/01/07/why_hm_destroys_unsold_clothes.html)

I guess that's why some of those startups that tried to create an "exclusive"
outlet prospered (Gilt Groupe, Vente Privee).

------
arkades
"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."

~~~
MrEldritch
I think there's a way to think about this that does actually make sense...

"As long as people are only willing to buy pretty produce, then because actual
produce inherently contains only a certain fraction of pretty produce, a
demand for pretty produce inherently creates a surplus of ugly produce which
can then be redistributed. In effect, every purchase of pretty produce hides
an invisible tax which goes to buying ugly produce for the homeless. If paying
customers no longer demand pretty produce, then stores will be able to only
order as much produce as they need for paying customers, and the ugly-food
surplus - that virtual tax on produce customers - will disappear. So, in
effect, the ugly produce movement is the equivalent of advocating for a repeal
of a tax on produce purchases which is used to buy produce for the poor."

And phrased that way - "do you support or wish to abolish the produce tax and
the social program based on it" \- it becomes a political issue which one can
reasonably have opinions supporting the tax on the basis that it helps the
poor. Especially as this tax and feed-the-poor social program has been created
_without government intervention or regulation_ \- they're an emergent product
of unforced consumer preferences, and there's no administrative overhead
involved in keeping track of the taxes and organizing food purchases because
it's just an automatic consequence of spending money to buy produce.

~~~
freetime2
This is an interesting way to frame the issue! However, your point about there
being no overhead to organize food purchases seems dubious to me. Charities
have overhead costs, too. And even if a food bank were run entirely by
volunteers at no monetary cost to the public, there is a social cost in terms
of the time the volunteers are donating.

Furthermore, I suspect that the improper valuation of “ugly” produce leads to
other sources of waste. Sure - some percentage of it makes its way to food
banks. But how much of it is left to spoil or used to feed livestock?

------
SatvikBeri
Imperfect Produce's reply: [https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-
us/articles/11500456...](https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-
us/articles/115004564574-Are-you-taking-produce-that-would-have-gone-to-food-
banks-otherwise-Where-did-this-produce-go-before-Imperfect-started-)

~~~
cowpig
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.

~~~
imperfect1
We source from medium and large scale farms where most of the 20 billion lbs
of food waste happens. These farmers either let their ugly produce rot in the
field, or sell it for pennies to animal feed. Happy to clear up any other
misinformation that this article presents.

------
djrogers
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.

------
sct202
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.

------
jpollock
"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.

~~~
Swizec
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

~~~
dcow
I get the sentiment but...we do have welfare programs. If a food source once
available is becoming scarce, then obviously they will need to be revamped
where appropriate.

~~~
DubiousPusher
I think it's easy to take that cold engineerlike approach when you won't be
the one occupying this gap until it is filled

~~~
dcow
Cold? Factual, maybe. Are you saying you buy ugly food?

~~~
DubiousPusher
No. I happen to agree that the best thing would be for the market to purchase
these items and for food subsidies to adjust. But you say

> they [welfare programs] will need to be revamped where appropriate.

as if this will certainly happen and that it will happen quickly. But that is
certainly not the case. And what do people do in the meantime? It doesn't seem
tough when you've got $1,000, $500 even $100 in the bank. But losing a small
benefit for even a couple years can be brutal if you're in poverty. The gears
of the market are a powerful tool for making our society wealthier but they'll
grind you up just the same if you're living on the margin as they begin to
turn. Ask anyone who has been a resident of a Midwestern town for the past 50
years.

~~~
dcow
I grew up in the Midwest. I think you’re mistaking my tone. I’m not saying we
shouldn’t care, I’m reminding the original parent that we do have welfare
programs and they will adjust. It’s equally absurd to suggest impoverished
people shouldn’t have access to the same food others do and be resigned to
ugly food because no one else buys it...

------
gjm11
This seems to be the exact same thing as
[https://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/uglyproduce/](https://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/uglyproduce/),
discussed before on HN at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786894).

~~~
komali2
Right, I felt like I was going crazy, because I was _sure_ I had read this
line before:

>Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on
recycling and garbage days in the East Bay.

but I couldn't find the linked URL elsewhere on HN! It's almost a verbatim
quote from the original article:

>Soon, their single use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling
and garbage days in the East Bay.

The whole paragraphs are nearly identical:

>Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were
showing up on our car windows, their outreach coordinators were pitching at
community meetings, their Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our
feeds, and they were edging into community centers we had operated at for
years. Their marketing blitz paid off. Soon, their single use cardboard boxes
began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We
lost customers, a lot of customers.

>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.

------
thrower123
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.

------
gorpomon
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.

------
kbenson
> 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.

~~~
ajkjk
Later on it says that it specifically helps only midsize- and larger growers,
because small growers don't produce large enough quantities for it to be
profitable to purchase from them:

"'We want to be able to source at least a truckload from these growers each
week, so they have to be at least midsize in most cases.' Imperfect Produce is
only able to make a profit by working with the larger global agribusinesses,
not the picturesque small and mid-sized farms it projects in its marketing
campaign."

~~~
beat
I have yet to see any food industry marketing anywhere that doesn't create a
rosy picture of family farming in its marketing, rather than the factory farms
and giant agribusiness that actually supply the vast majority of our food.

------
wbronitsky
"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?

~~~
cowpig
> 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.

~~~
in_cahoots
So how were the customers or farmers hurt here? It sounds like they chose to
switch services, and the only loser is the author of this post. It’s not clear
to me how losing customers = food banks suffering.

------
tedunangst
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?

~~~
sithadmin
>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.

~~~
maxerickson
We waste food because we can. If industrial agriculture and distribution were
less effective, there probably would be less food waste. And there would
probably be lots more hungry people.

~~~
sithadmin
You're not wrong, but just because we possess technical capabilities to
produce a surplus of goods such that the economy _can_ tolerate high levels of
waste doesn't mean that we _should_. This is an area where we should be making
incremental improvements, not only to increase the efficiency of how and where
we distribute goods, but in the interest of things like public health.

~~~
refurb
Food is wasted because it’s the most efficient method of meeting demand. Don’t
forget that solving the wastage issue _may increase_ the overall resources
needed.

In other words, the extra effort to prevent food waste might cost more than
the food waste itself.

It doesn’t make much sense to spend $1 to prevent the waste of a $0.50 potato.

------
Einstalbert
I almost bought into Imperfect Produce, too, what a bad taste in my mouth that
would have left. Thanks for the good read.

~~~
jdavis703
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.

~~~
394549
> I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient
> way to get produce delivered to your door

Honest question: are there similarly convent ways to get produce delivered to
your door that don't undermine the food banks' fresh food supply? If you can
afford to pay for produce, why not pay for the produce that's traditionally
been on the market?

~~~
sithadmin
Local CSAs frequently have a delivery, or convenient nearby pickup option.

~~~
cwkoss
Bit off topic, but does anyone know of a CSA that delivers in Seattle? I've
only been able to find ones that have pickup options.

------
maxerickson
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.

------
paxy
Lol "We donate waste food, so people who reduce waste are bad"

~~~
jakelazaroff
They're not reducing waste: before Imperfect Produce, this food went to food
banks. It's just that now someone has found a way to make money off of it.

~~~
greenshackle2
Farmers are no more on the hook to give free food to food banks than you and I
are.

~~~
jakelazaroff
I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that food that is donated and eaten
is not "wasted" just because no one has paid money for it.

------
k2enemy
> 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?

------
nitwit005
This is largely driven by a US government programs and tax laws, which the Op-
ed completely ignores:
[https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/resources/donations.htm](https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/resources/donations.htm)

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
I thought that CSA stood for _Community Supported Agriculture_ :

[https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-
agricultu...](https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agriculture)

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
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.

------
MrEfficiency
When I did the math + realized the shipping costs, it was a no-brainer.

I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products.

~~~
sithadmin
>I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products.

Good, quick talk by Zizek on this phenomenon:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g)

------
paxy
Why skirt around the fact that everyone (farmers, consumers, they themselves)
is still free to donate all the food they want? Imperfect Produce has not
changed that, just given some value to food that used to be "waste", which is
a good thing.

------
pascalxus
I like the concept but Sprouts is hard to compete with -> the prices seem to
be pretty competitive.

------
lacker
It seems quite unlikely that this random startup is actually the source of a
30% drop in business at BeetBox. Both of these companies account for a tiny
percent of the produce market. BeetBox would be better off working on making
their product better, rather than writing articles criticizing a startup doing
something similar.

------
ThefinalResult
Having a good laugh at the abuse and mutilation of terminology here in the
comments section, comedy gold.

------
loco5niner
> Some may claim we have a case of sour grapes. This is capitalism at its
> best, they might say.

Based on this biased article I agree.

------
mombul
Sounds like they're really mad they didn't partner up with Imperfect Produce
when they were given the chance.

