More than half of all food produced in Canada is lost or wasted, report says

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Retailers need to offer more single-item purchases (ideally without the "didn't buy a bag" punitive cost).

I don't always need 10 goddamn pounds of potatoes when I want to make some latkes.

When I was backpacking around NZ and Australia (admittedly, a long time ago), I was struck by how difficult it is for a space-limited person to buy groceries and toiletries at a reasonable price.

As a backpacker, I didn't have space for a 6 count roll of toilet paper, or a 32 oz bottle of shampoo, or 2 lbs of grapes, or an 8-pack of apples, or the like.

There has to be a market for selling single-roll of toilet paper, a "pay by the ounce" shampoo refill station (where you can bring your own small container and just fill it up from a selection of shampoos), for single-pack bars of soap, for smaller portions of produce (priced at roughly the same rate as the larger portion), for loafs of bread packed with 4 to 6 slices, and so on. Some of this already exists, but not all of it, and what does exist is often, as you note, punitively priced.

Maybe there isn't a nationwide market for this type of stuff, but there certainly is in the backpacker centers of the world, like Auckland, Sydney, Perth, Christchurch, Vancouver, Toronto, etc.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Which means, we buy bulk because it's cheaper per unit; not because it's punitive for "didn't buy a bag".

I think that is what he meant by didn’t buy a bag.

If the cost of small amounts of produce on a per pound basis was lower than in larger quantities food waste might be reduced.

[transplant99]

Speaking of waste.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1143502053613789184

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Speaking of waste.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1143502053613789184

Interesting topic actually. A few months back my Alumni magazine featured one of the PhD grads from the Math department who, among other things, was now contracted to Target in the U.S to help determine how to optimize packaging for their online delivery service. Think of the thousands of items a retailer ships and their sizes and weights. How do you optimize how many different sizes of boxes are required and what should those sizes be? The goal is to minimize the number of box sizes a retailer needs ($$$) but still keep things reasonable. Additional factors are how these box sizes interact with each other for loading onto pallets that are in turn loaded on aircraft for shipping. Those pallets are a defined shape and size so you need to maximize how many boxes can fit in each container.

Not saying this is a waste, it certainly appears to be. But there are a large number of factors to consider which makes shipping as much of a science as it is a commercial exercise.

Or maybe they just ran out of smaller boxes.....

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

So, you buy a 10-lb bag of potatoes to save five cents on a plastic bag?

Not every grocery has every produce item available in bulk (or sometimes they are sold out), or even just packages smaller than the "standard"

Ever tried to buy a half-pint of strawberries?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Not every grocery has every produce item available in bulk (or sometimes they are sold out), or even just packages smaller than the "standard"

Ever tried to buy a half-pint of strawberries?

Of course. Italian Store in Acadia, all Sunterra stores sell strawberries either without packaging or in really small paper bags.

I took your original post as a complaint about buying a large bag of potatoes to avoid having to pay five cents for a shopping bag. After re-reading it, it could be interpreted as a complaint about bulk pricing being more attractive. But then it would be arguing the sanctity of wholesale purchasing. Which is unthinkable. Unthinkable.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Of course. Italian Store in Acadia, all Sunterra stores sell strawberries either without packaging or in really small paper bags.

I took your original post as a complaint about buying a large bag of potatoes to avoid having to pay five cents for a shopping bag. After re-reading it, it could be interpreted as a complaint about bulk pricing being more attractive. But then it would be arguing the sanctity of wholesale purchasing. Which is unthinkable. Unthinkable.

Bulk pricing is likely a huge contributor to the consumer side of this problem, let's be real.

Bulk pricing incentivizes potential waste. Sure, coupon clippers and thrifty folk will probably make up multiple chicken based dishes with the 8-breast 20$ bulk pack that was on sale that week, but for every one of those, there is at least 5 guys who come in to get a 3 breast pack for 12$ to make up a single dish and they'll go "oh 12$ what a rip when those are 20$" and then proceed to let 5 breasts moulder in the fridge for a week.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

there is at least 5 guys who come in to get a 3 breast pack for 12$ to make up a single dish and they'll go "oh 12$ what a rip when those are 20$" and then proceed to let 5 breasts moulder in the fridge for a week.

I can't imagine letting a bulk pack of meat going to waste since it's about the easiest thing to freeze.

I will however buy a Costco pack of peppers, because they're cheaper than a 3-pack anywhere else, and 2/3 of them likely rot.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Bulk pricing is likely a huge contributor to the consumer side of this problem, let's be real.
Bulk pricing incentivizes potential waste. ...

Agreed. So what though? This sentiment is rooted in history and peoples' memories of famine. In my family, food was never wasted; we were taught to finish our plates and not to take more than we can eat. My grandmother used to say that throwing old bread away is a sin. It is true, when food supply is rationed or compromised.

However; it appears that modern science and industry have solved this problem. Food supply to the entire world population is no longer a concern at all. So, we should try looking at food only as an energy source, which we waste regularly, just like any other energy source available to humans - sun, ocean, electricity, gas, wood etc. Would it be smart, economically, to waste less energy? Yes. Is saving energy at all costs always feasible? No.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Agreed. So what though? This sentiment is rooted in history and peoples' memories of famine. In my family, food was never wasted; we were taught to finish our plates and not to take more than we can eat. My grandmother used to say that throwing old bread away is a sin. It is true, when food supply is rationed or compromised.

However; it appears that modern science and industry have solved this problem. Food supply to the entire world population is no longer a concern at all. So, we should try looking at food only as an energy source, which we waste regularly, just like any other energy source available to humans - sun, ocean, electricity, gas, wood etc. Would it be smart, economically, to waste less energy? Yes. Is saving energy at all costs always feasible? No.

We haven’t fixed food distribution yet. Food scarcity still exists for many people in the world and even in Canada. So if you waste food you are part of the distribution problem.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

We haven’t fixed food distribution yet. Food scarcity still exists for many people in the world and even in Canada. So if you waste food you are part of the distribution problem.

Oh, the good old central distribution planning argument. Someone really smart and benevolent has got to know better where things are needed and should be sent. Worked extremely well for the USSR economy.

It is a fallacy. No, we are not part of the distribution problem. Food is produced and distributed in accordance with the laws of supply and demand, blah-blah-blah. Any attempt to ration it, will result in artificial price manipulations and solve nothing for the under-developed regions of the world. Although, even in the extremely over-populated SE Asia regions, famine does not seem to be a problem, except for the war-torn areas. It's pretty much narrowed to a few African countries. So, rather than giving loud-mouth politicians and social media something to complain about, UN can focus more effort to supply food to those countries. Logical answer, right? Wrong. Their rulers don't want UN's food. They only want UN's money, which they can use to buy themselves more golden Rolls-Royces.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Speaking of waste.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1143502053613789184

Was blindly ordering this online and having it shipped several hundred kms the best way to find this product? People who always order on amazon and complain about the packaging blow my mind. There are other ways to purchase products.

[CaptainCrunch]

You know if we just moved to reducing all food types into pastes, we'd probably be wasting lest food and eating healthier, and would waste less.


If you wanted spaghetti and meatballs, you'd combine the meatball paste with the tomato sauce paste and the pasta paste.



I mean think of the savings dental wise with less wear and tear on our teeth. Plus we'd probably need less refrigeration hence lower carbon signature.


Your kid wants a chocolate cake for his birthday. Mix the cake paste with the chocolate icing paste.



With artificial flavors we could even have things like super nutritious simulated endanger species and imaginary animal paste.


Think of the ease of meal planning as well and the nutritional balance that we could achieve.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

...People who always order on amazon and complain about the packaging blow my mind. There are other ways to purchase products.

I complain about Amazon's wasteful packaging all the time. Yet, I am buying everything I can on Amazon, because it's convenient, fast and price-effective. I find what I need in minutes, I select the best price and click Prime Buy (free shipping to my office; no need to even go to the post office after work, no risk of having a package stolen from my front door). Think of all the energy and time I am saving by not driving to the stores. All the junk food that I am not eating at mall food courts. All the crap that I am not buying because that "today's only sale" discount looks amazing.

Amazon packaging is annoying. But it will change, I am sure, to become more efficient. Again, we tend to make a problem out of normal temporary challenges that market solves efficiently by itself.

[Shazam]

How the hell am I supposed to diet if I eat all the food on my plate?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Oh, the good old central distribution planning argument. Someone really smart and benevolent has got to know better where things are needed and should be sent. Worked extremely well for the USSR economy.

It is a fallacy. No, we are not part of the distribution problem. Food is produced and distributed in accordance with the laws of supply and demand, blah-blah-blah. Any attempt to ration it, will result in artificial price manipulations and solve nothing for the under-developed regions of the world. Although, even in the extremely over-populated SE Asia regions, famine does not seem to be a problem, except for the war-torn areas. It's pretty much narrowed to a few African countries. So, rather than giving loud-mouth politicians and social media something to complain about, UN can focus more effort to supply food to those countries. Logical answer, right? Wrong. Their rulers don't want UN's food. They only want UN's money, which they can use to buy themselves more golden Rolls-Royces.

When we purchase excess food we increase demand for food thus the price of food or the supply of food increases to meet demand until equilibrium is reached again. Our food choices set the Demand side of the equation certainly locally where we still have food scarcity.

As do our support indirect or direct of things like expiry dates, packaging etc. If demand for food in Canada dropped to what was needed it would lower cost, reduce supply or create new markets due to lower costs. All of these things would improve food access for poor Canadians.

I somewhat agree that politics gets in the way of solving food scarcity but cost certainly is still an issue.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

...
I somewhat agree that politics gets in the way of solving food scarcity but cost certainly is still an issue.

Not for simple foods, it isn't. For example, cost of rice production in SE Asia is incredibly low. Rice from SE Asia could be supplied to most African countries at a small fraction of what we pay for rice in Canada. But they don't buy enough of it. Why don't they buy enough to feed their populations - is a totally different question rooted in many economic, cultural and social ills. But those ills don't have much to do with Canadians throwing their half-eaten burgers into garbage bins.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I complain about Amazon's wasteful packaging all the time. Yet, I am buying everything I can on Amazon, because it's convenient, fast and price-effective. I find what I need in minutes, I select the best price and click Prime Buy (free shipping to my office; no need to even go to the post office after work, no risk of having a package stolen from my front door). Think of all the energy and time I am saving by not driving to the stores. All the junk food that I am not eating at mall food courts. All the crap that I am not buying because that "today's only sale" discount looks amazing.

Amazon packaging is annoying. But it will change, I am sure, to become more efficient. Again, we tend to make a problem out of normal temporary challenges that market solves efficiently by itself.

The topic is waste, not individual laziness.

I understand the convenience. But not only is there additional packaging waste, there is additional shipping of an item that has likely already been shipped to your local area in a larger quantity. That’s my point. Ordering a chapstick online (like that image appears) is insanity if you are actually concerned with waste and the environment.

I’m not against people ordering what they like, but to just focus on the packaging issue is short sighted.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The topic is waste, not individual laziness.

I understand the convenience. But not only is there additional packaging waste, there is additional shipping of an item that has likely already been shipped to your local area in a larger quantity. That’s my point. Ordering a chapstick online (like that image appears) is insanity if you are actually concerned with waste and the environment.

I’m not against people ordering what they like, but to just focus on the packaging issue is short sighted.

It's not necessarily true though. For, say, Walmart, the item goes to a Walmart warehouse, is then shipped to the store, and you go to the store to buy it. With Amazon, it goes to an Amazon Warehouse, then to you, skipping a step. Now, small individual items, if you buy them with a bunch of other stuff, or at a store you are walking by, ya, that's probably worse.



But a few weeks ago I drove to 4 different stores before finding it on Amazon, where I should have looked in the first place. In that case, it would have used fewer resources than trying to find something obscure in a store. I try to at least order a few Amazon items at the same time if I am not in a rush.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

...Ordering a chapstick online (like that image appears) is insanity if you are actually concerned with waste and the environment...

I understand your view and I totally disagree with it. You shouldn't be concerning yourself with the waste. Waste is not a problem at all - it is manageable at all local community levels (although not managed well often). Environment is a problem (pollution, air quality, water quality, micro-plastics in everything we f...n' eat and drink etc.); but Amazon's silly cardboard packaging, while annoying, is not making the capital E environment any worse. Just increases the volume of cardboard to be recycled into cellulose. It will be solved, once they come up with better and more efficient packaging .