Home / Blogs / Business / The Bulletin
Follow this blog:
RSS

Half of all food wasted

By | January 10, 2013, 4:43 AM PST

Dare to eat 'em. Crooked carrots are good, and good for you.

The world throws away up to half of its food according to an alarming report that blames consumers’ fussy preference for cosmetically appealing produce, supermarket promotions that encourage overbuying, and deficient storage, transportation and agricultural practices.

Between 1.2 billion and 2 billion metric tons of food - out of the 4 billion produced annually - never reaches a human stomach, the UK’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers says in Waste Not Want Not - Global Food Waste: Feeding the 9 billion.

“The amount of food wasted and lost around the world is staggering,” says Tim Fox, IME’s head of energy and environment. “This is food that could be used to feed the world’s growing population - as well as those in hunger today. It is also an unnecessary waste of the land, water and energy resources that were used in the production, processing and distribution of this food.

“The reasons for this situation range from poor engineering and agricultural practices, inadequate transport and storage infrastructure through to supermarkets demanding cosmetically perfect foodstuffs and encouraging consumers to overbuy through buy-one-get-one-free offers.”

The annual water wastage from growing discarded crops totals about 550 billion cubic meters, IME reports.

As shocking as this situation is today, it could become much worse by 2075 when, according to United Nations estimates, the world will have to feed an extra 3 billion people as the population surges to 9.5 billion.

“As water, land and energy resources come under increasing pressure from competing human demands, engineers have a crucial role to play in preventing food loss and waste by developing more efficient ways of growing, transporting and storing foods,” Fox says.

Consider IME’s report as food for thought the next time you reject a crooked carrot or a lumpy apple.

Photo: Carleton Garden Blogspot

A few food courses on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
58
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+7 Votes
+ -
Strange article
I'm not understanding how not wasting food in one country is going to help feed someone in another country thousands of miles away. How is "wasting" water in the USA going to help with water supplies in Africa? If perhaps we were to take the food that would be thrown away, and shipped it to somewhere that needed the food I can understand that, but who's going to pay for this?

Water isn't something that can be wasted in one area to the detriment of another area, unless you're downstream from the first area. You can't exactly ship the water that is being used to irrigate Kansas to the Sudan now can you?

The people quoted in this article sound like they're just mad that some countries of the world have more resources to feed their people than other countries do, and they want their piece of it.
Posted by BrewmanNH
10th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
"Food for thought", indeed.
Another missive from the crisis industrial complex. It's also another fine example of the "zero sum game" mentality embraced by the people behind these agendas; If there is abundance in one area, it must certainly be to the detriment of another.

One less drop of water used in one region does not mean one extra drop available somewhere else. In fact, I'd argue that it would mean less; the less abundant we are ultimately means fewer resources that we will be able and willing to export elsewhere.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Crisis industrial complex
I hope you don't mind if I steal that one. It's good. And you are correct. A large part of the problem is due to a central planning mentality. The central planners just need to get out of the way and let the people deal with it. But they know better how to do these things than us "common" folk.
Posted by mudpuppy1
11th Jan
+7 Votes
+ -
It's now a global market for food
Actually, food gets transported around the world far more than it was just a few decades ago. What we consider to be "American" crops such as corn and wheat are now often shipped to China and other countries. It's why you can get peaches and other summer fruit in American stores in the middle of winter. It's why a drought in Australia or Argentina can affect farm prices here in America. It's why America's obsession with corn ethanol can mean somebody goes hungry in Africa at the bottom of the food chain.
Posted by zackers
10th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
global food market
You are certainly are right about the global food market, and about the effect that ethanol has on the hungry in Africa. BUT you are wrong about the effect at the consumer level. When the you or you local store, or even your local food warehouse must dispose of food because it has become too old, or is cosmetically damaged or whatever, it is no longer possible to send it anywhere else.
Posted by jimofil
11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Inventory control
Yes, but that's what modern inventory control is all about. If grocery stores or warehouses consistently overstock food that goes to waste, they stop buying so much food. Any food that gets wasted the way you describe gets taken directly from the profit of grocery store and food processors. Of course, nothing can be perfect, but this is not how most food gets wasted.
Posted by zackers
11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
well said
The children think all American food is made here in the States, what simple minds.
Posted by Kiljoy616
13th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
comprehension skill are lacking
The amount of food wasted and lost around the world is staggering, says Tim Fox, IMEs head of energy and environment.

"around the world" is the key phrase
Posted by Kiljoy616
13th Jan
+9 Votes
+ -
This article was ghost-written by...
...my mother, who had grave concerns throughout my childhood with the effects of others' eating habits on "the starving children in [China, Africa, Ethiopia, Asia, Appalachia, Harlem (pick one or more)]".
Posted by dmm99
10th Jan
+5 Votes
+ -
Article qualified in first few words - as marketing PR.
"The world throws away up to half of its food according to an alarming report... "

"Up to half" means anywhere from 1 to 49% - and is a meaningless statement deflecting and absence of actual knowledge on the subject. "Alarming report" - well of course it is. How else would the reports authors attract enough attention for further funding, but its totally inaccurate and misleading. What the report doesn't say is that in most parts of the world food isn't really wasted because of its appearance or when its too ripe for market, it simply turns into farm animal feed - another form of human food. Even the military bases I worked on had swine farmers that picked up left over food from the mess halls. Most large food companies also use products that won't pass inspection as first quality because of blemishes. Ever see a mushrooms in cans labeled "Stems and Pieces." Meat and seafood processors do the same thing - hamburger and sausage are the trimmings from prime cuts. Inedible parts end up at rendering plants to be used for a variety things from animal feed ingredients, lubricants, cosmetics, candles to biofuels. Even small farmers allow their animal live stocks to graze harvested fields for the remains that mechanical harvesters miss.

This "alarming report" is totally inaccurate regarding actual food waste. The only thing alarming is that we are going to let the human population continue to spiral well beyond our long term ability to supply NPK (peak petroleum/peak phosphate) that 95% of the current population is dependent upon.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
10th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
The military are the worst offenders
My family had the hog ranch that picked up garbage from one military base (Camp Pendleton near San Diego). I have to say I have never seen such waste as in the garbage from that camp. We often saw nearly whole chickens, apples with one bite taken out of them, and other evidence of massive waste. The base fed their Marines very well (as we should), but it was shocking to see how much went to waste. We also picked up garbage from LA restaurants, and their waste was nothing like this. We even picked up garbage from the LA County Jail, where the inmates would toss anything valuable they could into the garbage, and they didn't waste food like this.

Sure, feeding garbage to hogs recovers some of the wastage. But perfectly good food just casually tossed into the garbage is a huge waste of money. I am saying this even though what the government wasted in this way was a big benefit to us.
Posted by zackers
10th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
So true. Blame Congress and the White House.
When I was at Pendleton in the late 1980s the chow halls were run by Marines and there was not much waste. You trained as you would fight and you conserve food supplies when you are fighting. Civilian contractors now run most of the base kitchens. Troop cut backs and a push for privatization by bipartisan efforts in Congress was behind the change.

The operating costs have skyrocketed, someone is making a huge profit. The quality has slipped, again with the cost cutting to increase the profit margin, and as you point out the amount of waste is disgusting. As an example, they cook for a thousand every meal, per the contract, but only 600 show up because of the poor quality.

Sales at on base franchise restaurants have jumped since the transition. Another part of the scam.

I remember the chow hall at Camp Del Mar was great. When on training flights, the fly boys from Miramar used to land their helicopters on the parade deck to get lunch and dinner there instead of going back to their base. It saved on flight time giving them a longer meal time and the food was better than Miramar which had gone civilian in the chow halls a few years earlier.
Posted by Hates Idiots
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Then it was the Marines
I am talking about the mid '70s thru mid '80s, so according to you the Marines were running the chow halls. I didn't see any evidence that whoever was running the chow halls was trying to reduce wastage. It was all very high quality stuff, which I don't object to, but there was no need to waste as much as they did.
Posted by zackers
11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
food poisoning
depends if the food is thrown out whole, or if the commisary threw the chicken out because it had been sitting out for hours and could give folks food poisoning. And commisaries are not known for their cuisine: uneaten food might be discarded because it was lousy.
Sometimes it is "cheaper" to throw out food than to pay someone to check out what can be reeaten the next day, and of course, food laws don't allow restaurants to reuse food left on plates for human consumption because it might have been touched or coughed on....
Posted by tioedong@...
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Very doubtful
No, I'm talking about whole chickens that clearly had been nibbled on. And there's no reason to get rid of apples or vegetables with only one bite. And why would the military have these kinds of problems when restaurants don't? My understanding is that mess times at most bases are very predictable, as are the number of people.
Posted by zackers
11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Must be a new thing.
This must be something new because back when I was in the mil in the late 80's wasted food was an oxymoron. It was not like anyone was fat and over stuff with food, more like people where still hungry, seconds where discouraged. But like so much corp. now probably have their hands in big profits and waste is a good thing for them and probably encouraged.
Posted by Kiljoy616
13th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Alarming report
Of course, it's the "never let a good crisis go to waste" mentality. Let's stir up the "masses" to demand government "action" don't you know.
Posted by mudpuppy1
11th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
The return of Communism's dogmas!
Dear friends,

This is exactly where the balance is broken between Capitalism and Communism, or where both dominating (at this moment mostly in the political and scientific manuals for the latter) economic systems fail.

The Capitalist system does not have a centralized resources control - i.e. everyone for himself, which although is also the drive behind this sytem, it clearly results in what the story is telling us - no one cares. As far as someone is making money (or pereprhased by the question above reader asked - who will pay for it), the resources, or their waste thereof, is not on the top of the list of priorities for the investor. The flaw here (as I have always believed it to be) is that this doctrine is largely based on limitless resources.

On the other hand, the Communist doctrine is better suited (on paper mind you) to address this inbalance, by means of a centralized control of all available resources, which in a perfect (utopian) way could regulate their usage in a more balanced, efficient and sparing way. The problem that plagues this otherwise fine idea is our animalistic gut that no doctrine can ever control or change - the urge to have more than ever (often more of what is actually needed). Abuse of everything (power mainly) became an order of the day for the top eschelon in the communist rule, and this is why this particular system did not bear any fruits either.

Above mentioned are the fundamental aspects embeded, and on which each system is built upon respectively, and not necesserily of what was seen in the real world (mostly for the Communism).

As long as we the Homo Sapiens only consider our individual selves (even at times when we hold our hands over our hearts proudly singing the national anthem, or when we donate to relief the hurricane struck populace, or when we donate food for famine plagued African countries), stories like this, which report of wastage, will be around to mirror our egoscentric species' evolution.

Sorry if all this does not sound very scientific, but I had to jot it down in between the office work, and with that said, my hipocricy perhaps emerged, by exposing me in wasting my employer's resources in doing something completely unproductive!
Prime example of all above said!
Posted by fo128
10th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
You fail to consider...
...that without capitalist abundance, the groups that promulgate articles such as the above would not even exist. Communist states have never expanded beyond their borders in the desire to export their wealth. They've only done so for political reasons, or to secure resources externally.

And I'd also question your belief that capitalist "doctrine is largely based on limitless resources."

It's quite the contrary. Capitalist doctrine is based upon scarcity, and the desire to profit by addressing scarcity by developing resources or alternatives. If the world was naturally abundant, we wouldn't need any system.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
The purpose of capitalism
is to enrich the rent-seekers, usually at the expense of everybody else. And modern consumption capitalism is, as he said, based on the assumption of limitless resources; why else would consumption be the primary yardstick of economic growth?

With rare exceptions, all other economic systems at least give lip service to "the greater good."
Posted by NickNielsen
Updated - 11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Excellent formulation!
Very short and simple but precisely to the point!
You abridged two of my mile long posts into a single phrase!

wink
Posted by fo128
12th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
With rare exceptions...
...all other economic systems at least give lip service to "the greater good.", and then proceed to intentionally do horrendous, evil things to people.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 17th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Food Waste
Obese people waste more, probably eating 2 too 3 times as much as they really need. Sugar ( The sweetest poison ) No. 1 Killer, No. 1 Health problem. I would like to see a story on this? No I mean a story on the dangers of refined sugar
Posted by Thomas Patterson
Updated - 10th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
I agree. Fat people are a menace to society.
They eat other peoples food. It gets me mad that a child starves in Afica because of every fat American.

They cost society billions a year in public health care and lost work hours with their health issues.

Lets face it, we are forced to buy beefier furniture for our homes and businesses to hold their lard butts or we get sued.

Dont forget the worst offence. The excess space they take up with their over sized proportions. 1 sumo wrestler takes up the space of 4 people on a Tokyo train. The outrage should be huge.

So be it. Fat people are banned. The UN will announce it next week.

President Obama will issue an executive order. Ordering the forced dieting of all fat people in the US and the world will be a better place.

Lets face it, they are more dangerous and costly to society than assault weapons.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 10th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Worse than all that...
...the added girth reduces the efficiency of all forms of transportation, adding to their carbon footprint. This is an ecological crime on multiple levels.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
10th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
At least you can see them coming
Stupid people, on the other hand... wink
Posted by NickNielsen
11th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Yeah,
but they block the sun which should contribute to healing our planet of the "global warming" epidemic. /sarc
Posted by mudpuppy1
11th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Food Wasted
A few thoughts:
1) Water is now a world-wide commodity. There are places in the U.S. that are beginning to suffer from shortages. The more water we put into crops and cattle, the less reserve we have if the aquifers are not being replenished. By throwing away food produced by scarce water supplies we throw away water; this puts us well on the way to being in the same state as countries with acute water shortage.
2) Produce requires fuel to move to market. When shipping large quantities of food that gets tossed out we add to a smog and air pollution problem that will affect everyone eventually, through respiratory problems, acid rain and many other issues. Cut down on excess shipments and cut down on environmental issues. Reduce the demand for fertilizers on fields that end up in the water supply eventually and cause health issues.
3) Wasted food adds to a garbage problem in already-peaking landfill sites. Where else can we put this waste? Additionally, think of how much money we pay just to throw the food away? Save yourself some time then - just throw the money away or give it back to your employer. Maybe send it to the countries that need to feed their starving population?

There are many implications of wasted water, food and useless consumption of fuel just to produce waste.
Think about it.
Posted by amphibian4
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Well said!
Agree completely!
Posted by fo128
10th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Modern transportation makes food production cheaper, not more expensive
While it seems a waste to ship food long distances, it's probably more efficient overall to grow food in climates where it is best suited and ship to where it's needed. Growing oranges in Wisconsin is probably not a good idea. In fact, my father grew up in Wisconsin during the Depression. For Christmas each year a rich aunt gave each kid in the family a whole orange, which cost $1 (about $16.80 in today's dollars) each to ship from Florida in a refrigerated boxcar. It was the only fresh citrus the kids saw the whole winter.

If you don't want to ship food long distances, then your diet will be severely restricted to whatever can be grown locally. It's why every region seems to have its specialty dishes.
Posted by zackers
11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
The limitless resources...
Edit: In reply to McGrew

Indeed what you say in your closing paragraph holds true, and it is probably my fault as I did not make myself completely clear on that point.

Having overproduction is what I was referring to (in line with the story) when I mentioned the limitless resources. My understanding is that if you approach the production stage with that in mind, you might use less resources in providing just enough, rather than extra, with the latter creating a surplus that will eventually end up on the worlds landfills. But because there is no centralized regulatory body to oversee this process, we all produce as much as possible in a desperate attempt to increase our sales / profits without often considering if all our produce will be sold, or rather, scratch that and use - consumed instead. We as manufacturers dont care where our products end up, as long as they are sold, the manufacturing costs are covered and the profits obtained (nothing wrong with the last one).

I also agree that science and new technologies do address the issue of scarcity, but not in the sense where the wastage is minimized, but on the contrary, to create more for less (as in cost) which again helps eventually end-up with an overproduction. If your factory produces more due to the newly installed manufacturing process, this does not necessarily translate in less wastage at the end.
Yes, we can create new materials which better address our world's needs today, but the fundamental principle remains that overproduction does go hand in hand with the Capitalistic system which will always result in that unescapable overproduction.
Hense, if we are prepared to live that way without considering how much of the products will be thrown away before they are even used, and accept this as normal, then yes, the doctrine is based on limitless resources.

This is what I meant which is in line with the topic of the story.
Posted by fo128
Updated - 10th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
History tells a pretty sorry story about what you suggest.
The world has yet to see a success story of a "centralized regulatory body to oversee this process". In fact, most attempts at such have frequently ended up executing various forms of genocide.

Ask the former farmers of Zimbabwe how that worked out. Zimbabwe used to be known as the breadbasket of Africa, with farms run by selfish, self-centered capitalist farmers working the land and making a profit. Zimbabwe's "centralized regulatory body" decided to kick the capitalist pigs out "to oversee this process." People are now starving, and Zimbabwe is just another bankrupt and starving African Marxist hell-hole.

But at least they aren't overproducing food anymore, so at least that problem is solved.

For example, would you honestly trust Al Gore to manage such a system? A dozen years ago, millions certainly would have. Fortunately, we all know better now.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 10th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
I suspect my post was moot once again.....
McGrew:

..as I noticed that you probably misunderstood me or perhaps read between the lines.

I am probably already being marked as the propagandist in this talkback and surely running the risk of taking this even further with my abstract thinking.

Try to understand that I am not advocating for a centralized system as a practical solution to this problem - at all (at least not at the current level of development), if that is what you feel from reading my reply. I am not even trying to offer a solution, because I don't even know what may work. I suppose the current status quo in place suits us well enough for the time being.

My original post was there to simply point out how the doctrines of the one system does not care about the wastage, and the other, although in a better position to address such issue, failed to do so in the real world because of our human (read: crude) and often disregarding approach to many things crucial for our survival.

My point was (and still is) that in the Capitalist system there are no provisions for a centralized body to control against such wastage (we all probably agree that this would be completely against the entire doctrine altogether). On the other side of the coin, despite being demagogical, the Communist system is actually provisioning to avoid it by controlling production according to the demand. The reality we know is different, an obvious fact you keep pointing out, but as I mentioned earlier, despite being utopian and widely despised, the Communist ethos and characteristics should (theoretically) be able to address this particular issue better. It could be a very farfetched idea, but if we follow this concept and are somehow able to set-up a production according to demand equation (without any secondary detrimental effect somehow), we would be following its roots, and in the process, avoid the current wastage this particular report is about.

Having a regulatory body may / may not be helpful (I am speculating here), but as I mentioned in my first post, looking back at the history not that far away, having such structure was futile and often had a reverse effect. Looking at all that, perhaps we need to grow further as a race before we are even able to embrace its concept. Point being, although it failed to produce positive results to date, we sure might have use of it in the distant future, when one day it could turn out being more appropriate for us as the human race evolves.

Also (a slight correction and setting the facts straight) you used a somewhat (in)appropriate example with Zimbabwe, as the situation there is not entirely true in the way you described it. After years, or even centuries of farming being a tradition for this nation, it is true that presently there is scarce or no production in that countrys farmlands, but not because there was an economical Marxist system enforced onto the farmers as you describe it. No, the farms where simply seized by the ruling government chaotically and without any plan in place for further development, which actually serves as yet another example of exactly what I said earlier (although not directly related) that in our desire as humans to have it all, we often blindly destroy what little we have disregarding any laws in the process. You could almost call it WAR. With the risk of offending you, I believe that your perception is actually a misconception about the Marxism and its inevitable atrocity the propaganda teaches us to expect from it. You should be able to differentiate between the case in Zimbabwe and the Marxism as an economical system, the former being in reality the law of the angry mob which has nothing to do with the actual Marxism from the books, or applied.

And something else; sometimes embracing and overcoming our most feared phobias can turn out to bring the best outcome at the end! Dont loath something now it might turn out to be your best option for the future. It could turn out to be the other way around of course, I cannot say. But it would be foolish to always follow the beaten track. Some of us have to go out into the woods in seacrh of the unknown in hope of better life.
Posted by fo128
11th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Yes, using Zimbabwe was an extreme example...
...and perhaps even unfair. And yet, every time this approach is attempted, Zimbabwe is what we end up with; incompetent people running the production and people somewhere starving. Every time. Are you going to tell me that Stalin & Mao didn't have plans either? There were a lot of smart people in Russia and China that simply could not make it work.

I sarcastically implied that waste is not a problem in "centrally controlled" systems because such systems simply fail to produce, so there can me little waste. Actually, that's not even true. Centralized systems create just as much waste, if not more as the "uncontrolled" systems because they end up producing goods and services that the "controllers" think the marketplace should be consuming, but that the marketplace simply doesn't want. People in the Soviet Union wanted for all kinds of goods and services that were commonly available in the west, and yet spent untold billions of rubles building warehouses to store the untold billions of rubles worth of (usually inferior) goods that nobody wanted.

"...the doctrines of the one system does not care about the wastage, and the other, although in a better position to address such issue, failed to do so in the real world because of our human (read: crude) and often disregarding approach to many things crucial for our survival."

I also dispute that the "capitalist" system doesn't care about "the waste". There is no upside to waste to the capitalist. It represents conceivable lost profit and usually costs the capitalist money in terms of disposal. (You do realize, don't you, that most "recycling" in our economy isn't done strictly out of a concern for the environment, but is driven by a profit motive?) A certain amount of waste is, in fact, inevitable under any system. Food spoils. No matter how well managed a centralized system you have, a certain amount of food will be lost to spoilage. In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that due to efficiencies in production, transport, and distribution, we probably lose less food as a percentage to availability to spoilage than any time in history.

If it seems that I "loath" "centralized" solutions, it's only because historically, the results have been tragic.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Many touching points indeed!
The only difference I see between our views is that you consider the lessons learned from History to be final - done and dusted so to say - and no heed needs to be given further to any of the past failures. I on the other hand try to accept any option, or offer, that is out there because often the circumstances surrounding a given failure are not taken into consideration. Many noble and notable beginnings fail, time after time, but as times and the humankind as a whole evolves, at the end of the day it is not uncommon for one of the many unacceptable beliefs today to eventually emerge and prove to be a better option even if only partially. And then again, I am not saying that we should embrace the whole belief from the first to the last page of its book / manual by heart, but rather extract the good points out and ponder how we could improve them with the current situation at hand. Times and people change, and with that everything else, so who can say that what seems / is impractical now would not become the sought answer in the distant future. I say this again, these are mere speculations on my part indeed, and yes, I might be way off from the traditional or politically correct thinking, but we often need to apply a different and broader vision in order to achieve something revolutionary or out of the ordinary, which, when applied correctly into practice might improve our lives as a whole.

Let me present you with an analogy. Perhaps it will make more sense and better showcase my thoughts. Taking any board game where the rules are set and make great sense, but only to find out that most of the players are cheating while they are playing.

A small note here; the desire to win every time is embedded deep into our psychology and genes, which makes us often cheat if we deem it necessary to obtain the desirable results.

Continuing my thoughts further, we shouldnt bash the rules because of what the cheats are doing and blaming the former for an uncontrollable and unplayable game. The person who created these rules did not anticipate that the players might be cheating and making the game unplayable in the process. Surely the lesson learned from this experience is not that the game itself is bad as it is, or that the rules are absurd, but rather how can you make the players follow the games rules making it possible to obtain the correct end result. In a way, this resembles the doctrines of the world and many other things on this planet failing to take into consideration the human factor. And this, my friend, is the reason why many things still dont work properly or efficiently to-day!
Posted by fo128
11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
What is the definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a completely different result.

I really don't see anything good happening by attempting to solve this relatively minor problem by implementing an approach that has failed pretty much every time it's been tried, and where the consequences are starvation.

That is, unless the goal actually is to "lessen the surplus population", as it was for Stalin & Mao.

"...we shouldnt bash the rules because of what the cheats are doing and blaming the former for an uncontrollable and unplayable game.

It's ironic that governments today are currently taking the completely opposite approach towards bigger issues in society, like drug use.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 12th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Kanban
My attempt with the previous posts was to point out that sometimes the theories are judged to be incorrect or demagogical, but we often fail to see that the culprit actually is the incorrect implementation. This is what I was referring to with the analogy of the cheating players. Also, let us be clear that I am not defending the teaching as a whole, so no need to point out all its failures trying to prove its futility. I was the one describing it as demagogical and utopian, which is why I get the feeling many here are barking at the wrong tree. I am simply saying - lets look at what might be a positive concept and try to work around it, improve it (if we can) and then possibly - adopt it.


I know there is/was a Kanban system used at Toyota - in Japan, which strongly resembles in its roots what the communist manifesto says - production and supply are to be regulated by the demand, but I believe this is/was applied to a small supply loop scenario. Surely this has little or nothing to do with the Communist doctrines and non-conforming concepts I am referring to in my posts, but the two are highly identical in their pursuit and goals. So as I said earlier, take the theory (turn it inside out if you have to) and extract the parts that might have some merit in it at any given time or situation. But first, many need to remove their blinkers and peek outside of their usual scope of vision. Many discarded doctrines, philosophies and teachings exist out there even some that have failed at some point in time. The tragic truth however is that sometimes we do not realize that a better solution might be just around the corner, waiting to be found, only if we just peeked in there.

So, my closing words are for a no return of Communism (please)! We dont want that! We just want to stroll and look around to see if we like something to take with us on the way out!
Posted by fo128
17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Cuba is a better example of the failure.
"Cuba opens way to larger private farms on fallow government land"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11086544

"The Cuban farm revolution 'forgot' "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5327330.stm
Posted by Hates Idiots
11th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Whether or not
food gets thrown away is not really the point. It will always be of benefit to someone or something, be it human, animal or insect. The real point here is that the world can not support 3 billion more people. And it's not just a question about feeding them, they need lots and lots of other stuff, and they would want even more. As long as the population as a whole don't understand the importance of restriction of reproduction and keeping a balance in nature, we will steadily have more and fiercer competition of all existing resources. Imagine a world where there would be about 10 million people. Then there would be enough food, things, energy and other resources for everyone. In a world with +7 billion people it's not going to happen, whatever anyone's personal belief, philosophy or religion may be. ALL populations that grow too big begins to suffer from the consequenses.
Posted by Dukhalion
Updated - 10th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Yes, but the most productive food producers are not increasing population
You make a good point about population. I grew up in agriculture and I don't know how the world will increase its food production by 50% from 2000 levels. The world has just about maxed out its arable land and water. The only way to feed everyone will be to greatly reduce meat consumption, since it's more efficient to feed grain directly to humans without feeding it to animals first. Good-bye Big Macs!

However. the most productive agricultural areas such as the US, Europe, and even China are also the places of small or even negative population growth (China's population will peak around 2015 then go down drastically because of one-child-per-family). India for awhile was self-sufficient but is now loosing that battle. We all know about Africa, even though it probably has the greatest potential for increased food production. So it's likely there will be mass starvation again in some parts of the world unless we work to keep markets open.
Posted by zackers
11th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
What we need, is government control, to oversee all of the production
of all food, and to make sure that it is equally and equitably distributed all over the world,

Five year plans, like in the old USSR, will make sure that, nobody goes hungry and that everybody gets their "fair share". No more waste, and no more overproduction, and no more greed. Everybody is equal, like the constitution says with "all men are created equal" (guess women didn't count back then). Everybody will live in either poverty, or in riches, but most likely, poverty, but it wouldn't matter, as long as all are getting an equal slice of the pie (except for those that are "more equal", of course).
Posted by adornoe
10th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Well, one thing would be certain.
There'd be far less food available to waste.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 10th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
True, and if there is a scarcity of food and people might have to go hungry
then, the solution is to, get rid of the excess.

The excess of people, that is.

We'd then have enough food for the remaining population, and we'd have licked many problems at the same time: no overpopulation, nobody going hungry, no waste, no damage to the environment, and no greed (the greedy would be sent to "re-education camps", never to be heard from again), no fat/obese people (not enough food for that), and no production of anything beyond the mere necessities to live (food, clothing, shelter).

Heck, we'd have it so good that, all of the other stuff we take for granted, like cars and computers and telephones and TVs, wouldn't be able to get produced, since we'd all be just worrying about where our next plate of food would be coming from. But, what the heck, if the tribal people's in the Amazon can live off the land alone, so can we. It would be Utopia.
Posted by adornoe
10th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
The Amazon
At least the organic vegetables I would grow down the Amazon's river bank will still have its original taste (as God had intended) compared to the soury plastic colorfull greens that the 8 or 10 billion overpopulated world will be used to because the farmers are all strugguling to supply enough of that taking-too-long-to-grow-naturally vegetable. Quality of life does not necesserily mean having too much. Sometimes you just need to have enough but of the good stuff. Yes it is a rural phylosophy but it is a reply to a similar post. No offense. Just some fun!

EDIT: And now back to the field as I have plenty of potato rows left to dig as I cannot repair the USSR made tractor's engine - due to factory closure and lack of spares, defective parts, irregular supply dates etc etc etc.
Posted by fo128
Updated - 11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Very sharp!
I liked it imensely happy
Posted by fo128
11th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
define "wasted"
This is an "ain't it awful" article written to induce guilt in your readers.

Why not print an article that shows how Las Vegas and other cities managed to recycle their restaurant food for pigs, or how that could be implemented in other areas? Why not print links to how using pesticides, preservatives, radiating food, proper food storage can eliminate a lot of food waste in the First world?

And why not add that even in countries (like the Philippines, where I live) most of the food is not wasted but destroyed by vermin, and point to articles that show how countries are preventing such things/
Posted by tioedong@...
10th Jan
-2 Votes
+ -
Think local and solve. The farms are simply too big.
Qccupied territory does not thrive, Indigenous people know that. If there is not a change of attitude in character the worst is yet to come to them. A lifetime to find out how and when.

True good knowlege is the key, while some might never find it, others take it for granted....

A precarious balance between the elements that support life.
Posted by Elrandy
11th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Food waste
What I wish is that all these restaurants would offer every meal as a half meal. Not just if I have a kid or senior. I would pay an extra dollar to get half of your heaping platter that I can't eat and shouldn't. Always end up taking stuff home. Why are portions always so huge. Also why don't people backlash against the huge portions at stores. They say the population is dwindling here but couldn't tell when everything geared towards the Kate plus 8 crowd. Big grabs, huge cans, huge bottles. I am single and would like to by a small can of vegtables or soup, ketchup, salad, meat, etc. I go to stores with meat counters and get single piece, go to deli get small portions of cheese. Stop the insanity.
Posted by GAstorino@...
11th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, you can order and buy the sizes you wish, and in reality,
when people go shopping for food, they buy in quantities that "fit" their needs, and if the quantity you wish
Posted by adornoe
13th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, you can order and buy the sizes you wish, and in reality,
when people go shopping for food, they buy in quantities that "fit" their needs, and if the quantity you wish to order is not available, then there are other stores.

There are many different sizes for canned and bottled food and drinks, and you do have a choice. When ordering meats, many stores have different sizes; there are meat stores that will cut the exact size that you need for any particular meat or poultry.

It's really up to you to decide. Choices are many, and you don't have to end up with more than you want to consume.
Posted by adornoe
13th Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive