Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Food is perishable. The population rises exponentially. I don't personally believe anyone is purposely destroying food for political reasons that I'm aware of. A great deal is shipped to 3rd world countries in an attempt to help feed their populations where possible. And, even here at home many grocery stores attempt to redistribute food that is about to expire to homeless and poor communities. More can be and should be done. I don't mean to come off as confrontational. If you have some articles that point to this I'd like to read them. That is clearly wrong and shouldn't be happening if it is.

Edit: I'd like to point out though, it seems odd that you are arguing for limiting/destroying production by turning farmland into parks. But then go on to suggest that OECD countries are attempting to limit production unfairly? Very confusing.

Edit 2: My dad was also part of a charitable group that helped provide seeds and training to other countries in need in an attempt to help them to establish their own self-sustaining agricultural industry.




"Very confusing."

I agree that you are confused.

"But then go on to suggest that OECD countries are attempting to limit production unfairly?"

I never suggested that there was anything unfair about this. But that the advanced nations warehouse large amounts of food, and then dispose of it when it has gone bad, is well known and has been much discussed elsewhere.

"Food is perishable."

Annual production exceeds annual demand. Even when this year's food goes bad, next year there will be more, and it will be in excess of demand.

This is a big topic and I can not provide you with a full education on this topic. I'll recommend one book that I like, which is Diet For A Small Planet, by Frances Moore Lappe:

https://www.amazon.com/Diet-Small-Planet-20th-Anniversary/dp...


My apologies! I didn't mean the "Very confusing" comment as an ad hominem attack.

Seeing it from the production side I don't see that there is any attempt to suppress production. Everyone wants a good harvest and to produce as much product as they can. And, sometimes mother nature allows for it.

I feel there are honest attempts to feed people with that remaining food. And, there is the issue that sending food constantly to another country in need doesn't really address the problem. To paraphrase an old proverb, "Give a person a fish and they will eat for a day. Teach them to fish and they will eat for a lifetime." Ultimately, the food should be grown locally as much as possible to meet at least basic needs. Everything imported beyond that should be mere excess. That is how we will one day feed the world.

Thanks for the book btw.


Its more complicated.

Consider India, its arguably a 3rd world country but it often trumps US in the amount of wheat it dumps in the sea. One of the reasons why it does so is to support the price that a wheat farmer can earn. In addition to dumping, there is also spoilage. Grain storage infrastructure in India is quite poor.


"I don't personally believe..."

Fair enough, but do a search for "agricultural surplus destruction". As far as I can tell, this isn't a matter of belief.

"My dad was also part of a charitable group that helped provide seeds and training to other countries in need in an attempt to help them to establish their own self-sustaining agricultural industry."

So the idea is that these populations we're incapable of sustaining themselves before contact with the West/Global North? No trying to be confrontational, just hoping to highlight that this statement begs the question.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: