• dellish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    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.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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.

    • dellish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      And for those who don’t know Craig Reucassel is also one of the founding members of The Chaser satire team.

  • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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. ↩︎

  • khendron@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

  • LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Imagine if they actually sold the whole crop to stores. Bananas would be $0.10 a pound. You would never be hungry.

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • Schadrach
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          So if I understand corrextly, if the bananas got into shops, they would just be thrown out later and with additional costs.

    • khendron@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Bananas are already pretty cheap. I think they are the cheapest fruit in the grocery store.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                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.

                • arrow74@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  I’ve made a simple historically verifiable statement

                  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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      I’d assume that intercontinental food shipping would have been rather difficult in the 1500s.

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

  • downvote_hunter@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 hours ago

    “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.”

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

    • Eq0@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Banana juice is a thing, and banana chips and such. Probably too small of a market to repurpose all the uncool bananas :/

    • snoons@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      12 hours ago

      There are some frozen fruit mixes that use banana chunks. Also some that use frozen puree in pre-measured shapes.

  • Emi@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

  • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Capitalism optimizes for low cost and high prices. Waste helps maintain high prices, so capitalism absolutely encourages waste.