Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Good guess Einstein.
That doesn't detract from levels of wastage and how poor the current system is.
Send 5,000 chickens to Gravesend, but keep all land in Malawi free for tobacco and coffee.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Great effort from the French to reduce food waste
- Thread starter Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ
- Start date
Good guess Einstein.
That doesn't detract from levels of wastage and how poor the current system is.
Send 5,000 chickens to Gravesend, but keep all land in Malawi free for tobacco and coffee.
Cian
Well-known member
And yet you went for an inaccurate newspaper headline figure rather than the actual UN committee figures, despite trying to use them as a reference?
The majority of food waste comes from consumers buying more than they use and binning it; and retailers/food service ensuring that consumers can have what they want when they want and hence binning stuff that's not bought - not bockety vegetables being pushed to one side.
We've reached a point now where the waste gunk from making cheese is sold for reprocessing to get a small amount of extra cash back. How you can possibly believe that with producer margins being squashed by retail constantly that actual saleable product would be thrown out en masse is beyond me.
So, not bockety vegetables then.
Have you considered you're going after the entirely wrong part of the problem here?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,349
well its been an issue for some time, why suddenly an issue? im not saying people make up the 40% stat but i venture its distorted. for a start is that 40% value or quantity? how much is disgarded food from over production due to subsidies?
because thats really what food waste is caused by, not mis-shapen veg, a large proportion of which will find its way in to processed food. that 40% food grown in US will largly be corn that is turned in to ethanol for fuel (assuming they arent also counting cattle feed). obviously supermarkets dont want mis-shapen because we dont buy it, they dont want to pay for it, ship it, store it only to then bin it. so we see that part and get all upset about it, those nasty supermarkets. meanwhile many times more was dumped because it simply didnt get used, mis-shapen or not. why you think they pay farmers to set aside land? because its slightly cheaper than paying for prodcue to be grown, transported and dumped.
looking further at that graph onthe BBC, its notable the waste in Asia occurs in those stages before it gets to consumption is greater, showing that misshappen veg really isnt the root of the problem.
though the marketing opportunity taken here is great, i wouldnt be surprised if they make a larger margin on the inglorious stuff.
Last edited:
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Inaccurate newspaper headline? I must have missed where you discredited it.
Proof please. I'm probably inclined to agree that a large tranche of waste comes from consumers, but you are not backing anything up with figures. You are going along with a quick visit to a potato factory!
Cian
Well-known member
The very article you linked to gave a breakdown of the overall loss showing at what stage of the process it was at, did you actually read it?
You gave a single, inaccurate, set of figures; and you're now obsessing over a single example given (and getting rather pathetically petulant, as it happens)
Have you anything concrete at all here?
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Simple is quite an apt term in this context.
Let me spell it out for you...
Your minimal waste, as accredited by international bodies (much larger than you profess) accounts for millions upon millions of tonnes that you just write off on a whim.
Over production at the farm level, ad infintum. Have you heard of the mountains and lakes of food?
Your
Cian
Well-known member
Says you - you haven't got the figures. You've got a 10.8% harvest related loss figure which includes damage due to harvesting for starters - not an insignificant thing with, say, soft fruits.
There reaches a point where its more productive and cost effective to lose a percentage than get everything - more careful harvesting will result in less, dearer product - a surefire recipe for food poverty.
Unrelated issue - and one that does need addressing. But not bockety veg related.
The Large One
Who's Next?
I stopped when I got to this.
Farmers who produce for supermarkets don't have a choice. Supermarkets pick what produde they want; the (usually one-sided) deal struck with the farmers means that they don't get to choose what happens to the unwanted harvest, irrespective of its quality. Anyone found selling their own produce if often in breach of the contract, and doesn't get used by the supermarket again.
Your disbelief in the rest of the supermarket / farmer debate lessens your argument. In fact, you don't actually have one, apart from to believe your own pre-conceived notions. That's especially prevalent by the use of the meaningless word 'trendy' to back up your self-admitted guesswork.
Cian
Well-known member
The UK has obviously fallen to a level of corruption that I hadn't expected, then - albeit some proof rather than innuendo would be nice.
Farmers here sell almost entirely through cooperatives, even to supermarkets - the supermarkets get to pick what they want, but have zero control over anything else. They still screw and screw on price but that's to be expected.
My argument is that the 40% figure is bollox - and guess what? The figures I've been given to argue against that show that it is, in fact, bollox. If someone could actually come up with valid figures rather than implication, innuendo and petulant behaviour I'd be delighted to see them.
Trendy has a very specific meaning - and there has been a very recent fad of stunts involving misshapen vegetables. Avoiding dealing with the real issues while going for the publicity stunt angle is very, very typical behaviour these days though.