What happens to the food?

[RadioRaheem84]

In a capitalist society things are produced for profit, not necessarily use, or consumption right? So what happens to the extra food that isn't sold and consumed that day it's put out? Since it's not like a laptop, it cannot just waste away in a warehouse during times of overproduction. Is it burned? Can the capitalist afford to give it away for free?

Something really struck me while reading the ABC's of Socialism; that whole wheat fields were burned because they weren't sold on time. Is this true? Are people going hungry because our production capabilities are being used for profit?

[Tablo]

Extra food is typically thrown out, but some groups like Food Not Bombs likes to collect dumpstered food to provide meals to the poor.

[RadioRaheem84]

Extra food is typically thrown out, but some groups like Food Not Bombs likes to collect dumpstered food to provide meals to the poor.

Well I meant that if we didn't have organizations like FNB. The capitalist relies on the production of food for profit (the corporate farm). What does he do with the extra food he hasn't sold to super markets and restaurants and who ever else? Would he lose profits by giving it away for free?

[Tablo]

They might lose money. I'm not really sure. If people feel like they can get food for free then they will be less willing to buy food would be the company's logic. Farms already destroy much of their crops anyway.. :(

So they do destroy what is not sold, but I do not know if it would really hurt them to give it away for free.

[RadioRaheem84]

They might lose money. I'm not really sure. If people feel like they can get food for free then they will be less willing to buy food would be the company's logic. Farms already destroy much of their crops anyway.. :(

So they do destroy what is not sold, but I do not know if it would really hurt them to give it away for free.

I assume that it would hurt them in the same way it would hurt Sony to give away Vaios for free. It would give people less of an incentive to buy it when it first comes out. That's why people wait about a year for products to go on sale. But the Vaio is not the same as an apple or any other food produce that withers away much quicker. So it makes more sense to burn the food rather than give it away for free.

[Tablo]

I assume that it would hurt them in the same way it would hurt Sony to give away Vaios for free. It would give people less of an incentive to buy it when it first comes out. That's why people wait about a year for products to go on sale. But the Vaio is not the same as an apple or any other food produce that withers away much quicker. So it makes more sense to burn the food rather than give it away for free.
Exactly. Would be nice if they would send it to the third world, but that would cost them a minuscule portion of their profits that they can't live without.

[ComradeMan]

There is terrible wastage of food, which is immoral in my opinion.

The EU has a quota system on agriculture which is supposed to avoid over-production but can actually backfire. Many cases of fisherman dumping excess fish dead into the sea from their nets have been reported- this is to avoid the harbor fines of being over-quota. The system is also open to abuse. In Italy the mafia, as usual, was receiving subsidies for olives that didn't even exist whereas farmers throughout the EU can earn more money next year by choosing not to grow a different crop to the one they didn't grow this year....:confused:

[Hit The North]

Surplus food, or surplus any commodity, on the world market would result in a drop in the price of that commodity. So it is more "profitable" for American farmers to dump surplus grain into the ocean than to give it away free to the world's poor.

We live in an insane and anti-human system.

[Pogue]

Extra food is thrown out. You might ask why they don't give it away. Well, then people would get it for free and no one would buy it in the shops. Thats the inflation of prices inherent under capitalism for you.

The UK throws away more food than it consumes.

[RadioRaheem84]

The steep decline has been particularly startling because the system that supplies much-needed food has traditionally benefited both farmers and emergency food programs. When supplies of a commodity exceed demand and prices are low, the government buys up the surplus and gives it to food banks, food pantries and other assistance programs. In this way the USDA brings supply and demand more in line and helps shore up prices for key commodities such as milk, butter and wheat. The system also allows farmers to sell their surplus production. In the 1980s, the USDA bought up so many commodities that it had to scramble to find places to stockpile them.

But when demand exceeds supply, the surpluses dry up. Indeed, in recent years the nation’s farmers have been able to sell much of what they produce at record prices, and the USDA’s buying power has diminished. But for food assistance programs, the soaring demand has meant a steeply diminishing supply of staples in food banks and food pantries.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/family/articles/what_happened_to_the.html

So the State tries to buy up the extra food to donate it to the food banks like a giant charity organization. The only thing though is that this itself turns out to be another market for the suppliers.

[Drace]

I suppose this is why the US throws away half its food? (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041024002637data_trunc_sys.shtml)

Though the article only attributes 14% of the food lost due to people buying them but not eating them.
What attributes to the rest of the food thrown away?

[Decolonize The Left]

I suppose this is why the US throws away half its food? (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041024002637data_trunc_sys.shtml)

Though the article only attributes 14% of the food lost due to people buying them but not eating them.
What attributes to the rest of the food thrown away?

If you start at the producing level, any food that is not sold directly to a consumer or distributor is to be discarded (or perhaps donated to charity for a tax deduction). The distributor then must sell all the food before it 'expires,' and afterward generally throws it away. The consumer also must consume the food before its expiration date, and if they fail, it gets thrown away.

So 14% may be to households not eating the stuff, but I'd bet that the most waste happens at the production level, then at the distribution level.

- August

[Drace]

If you start at the producing level, any food that is not sold directly to a consumer or distributor is to be discarded (or perhaps donated to charity for a tax deduction). The distributor then must sell all the food before it 'expires,' and afterward generally throws it away. The consumer also must consume the food before its expiration date, and if they fail, it gets thrown away.

So 14% may be to households not eating the stuff, but I'd bet that the most waste happens at the production level, then at the distribution level.
The article is trying to discredit the American society for being wasteful, instead of the capitalist system. So it avoids explaining where the other 86% percentage went.
And yea, that is what I am thinking, but I'm looking for some evidence and sources on that thesis.

[RadioRaheem84]

And yea, that is what I am thinking, but I'm looking for some evidence and sources on that thesis.

yeah what happens to the food? doesn't anyone document what happens to it?

[MarxSchmarx]

yeah what happens to the food? doesn't anyone document what happens to it?

Yes. in most developed countries food that is thrown away ends up in a landfill as degradable municipal solid waste"

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_food_waste_2/

Such wasting is normally built into the costs restaurants and grocery stores assess.

[ellipsis]

The lost revenue from waste is built into the price of things. If there is too much of a commodity, then the price tanks so they destroy crops etc. to avoid flooding the market. The french gov buys up surplus wine and converts it to fuel.

I was told by a founder of a fair trade coffee company that starbucks destroys as much coffee in a day as his company roasts in an entire year.

Also buffet restaurants throw out A LOT of food which can be given away to charities after it has already been put out for sale.

Also recalls are a big waste because they recall way more than necessary to be safe. Food pantry and homeless shelters throw have to throw away recalled food too. Check out all the Cliff, Luna and granola bars I dumpstered during that huge peanut butter recall.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0xCx5PWyccM/Sam7Pdx51QI/AAAAAAAABCQ/PZ6QostGE6M/s1600/IMG_0059.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0xCx5PWyccM/SazinuAO7gI/AAAAAAAABCg/X0qLyTxSFzw/s1600/IMG_0071.JPG
There was more that I couldn't carry and had to leave. I basically lived off these for months, along with other dumpstered food. After I grabbed this stuff I pulled seven cases of Pom juice that had "expired" out of another dumpster.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes. in most developed countries food that is thrown away ends up in a landfill as degradable municipal solid waste"

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_food_waste_2/

Such wasting is normally built into the costs restaurants and grocery stores assess.


This article is mainly talking about wasted food after its been purchased by people, grocery stores or restaurants. I am looking to find out how much food is disposed of by the suppliers i.e. the surplus food produced. Do they only make enough to meet certain quotas?

[RadioRaheem84]

bump. anyone find anything?

[Patchd]

The European Union (EU) burns more crop than the amount of their crop that is consumed, the USA burns more crop than the whole of the EU produces. Way to go capitalism.

[Pogue]

The European Union (EU) burns more crop than the amount of their crop that is consumed, the USA burns more crop than the whole of the EU produces. Way to go capitalism.

Mainly because of subsidies innit. And also because they basically refuse to distribute it where it needed, i.e. parts of Africa.

[Patchd]

A lot of it is due to subsidies, but it would occur on a large scale no matter what anyway, in a capitalist society, where profit is king, burning your own crop as opposed to devaluing the price of it by handing it out for free to people who need it, would be preferred by most, if not all, producers.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_bank

Would you guys say food banks are the answer to the question? Could this be an excuse by some libertarian to avoid the anti-human system of profiting off food?

[Drace]

The European Union (EU) burns more crop than the amount of their crop that is consumed, the USA burns more crop than the whole of the EU produces. Way to go capitalism.

Source?

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah I would like a source too,

[ellipsis]

Would you guys say food banks are the answer to the question? Could this be an excuse by some libertarian to avoid the anti-human system of profiting off food?


Sorry do you mean that this is the answer to food distribution in a post revolutionary society?

[RadioRaheem84]

Sorry do you mean that this is the answer to food distribution in a post revolutionary society?

No I mean would this be current society's response to surplus food. Sort of like how libertarians say charities take care of externalities like poverty.

[ellipsis]

If food banks had the amount of food that is thrown away to give away to the poor, hardly anybody would even bother going to food stores. The bourgeoisie would never go for this; the poor are kept impoverished for reason.

[Robocommie]

My parents frequently visit a village in El Salvador where they have friends. The villagers there are mostly campesinos, picking coffee beans for the landowners (who own everything.) If the global price of coffee is too low, the landowners will literally decide to simply not harvest their beans. This means the peasants don't have any work, and of course there is less coffee on the world market, leading to higher prices next year.

Likewise, the problem is compounded in a lot of distribution methods. In the US at least, stores routinely purchase more than they can stock because they want to keep the shelves brimming with food at all times - nobody likes the look of empty shelves even if nobody's getting shorted. The surplus food that's been ordered will expire before it's sold, and then get thrown away.

My brother used to own a small breeding farm with sheep and goats, that kind of thing. One of the best forms of cheap food was a local Sunbeam store here in town. When the bread, donuts, buns, all of that expires past a certain point, it becomes illegal to sell. In fact, it becomes illegal to even give to the homeless for free. The Sunbeam store had a backroom full of this off-product which was given for free to farmers to give to livestock. To some extent this might not be a bad thing, you don't necessarily want people eating rotten food that will make them sick. But a lot of this food wasn't truly rotten, just past the safe date established by the government.

Also think of places like McDonalds. They spend all day making burgers and fries so they'll be ready to shovel out on demand, but at the end of the day there's always leftovers. The employees will get first dibs on the leftovers for free (I can't even tell you how many free burgers I've gotten from friends who work at McDonalds) but the rest gets thrown out.

This is one of my biggest concerns with capitalism. I don't think we should have the illusion that this is an easy problem to solve, we might always be faced with the dilemna of having too much or too little distributed to any one area, and unfortunately too much in one place will likely mean too little in another. But there is a lot of room for improvement, and I feel socialist organization can do a lot to eliminate the most grotesque abuses.