Hugh's War on Waste

Pollycat

catkins wrote: »

I'm also angry with the British people though. Why are so many people throwing away perfectly good food and other items? That was a bin collection for 1 street so imagine the waste across the country.

I think a lot of people just chuck stuff into their trolley with no idea what they are going to use it for.
And when the 'magical' use-by date clicks over, they throw it away.

I once cat-sat for a friend (not as a live-in sitter, just popping in once a day).
She said I could take anything that was in the fridge.
On my first visit, I checked the contents and IIRC there was:
a full punnet of strawberries
unopened cream
unopened smoked salmon
3/4 cucumber , a couple of slices gone and put back without being wrapped up
Opened packet of sliced ham
etc etc
Lots of other stuff that made me wonder about her spending/planning habits.

When we go away, I make a list of what fresh stuff needs using up and plan lunches & dinners around that.

catkins wrote: »

Why would you throw away perfectly good bacon or an egg that is 1 day out of date? I never even look at dates on eggs, it is perfectly easy to know if they are ok or not. Those onion bhajis could have been lunch another day - they certainly would be in my house.

I don't think a lot of people posting on the Old-Style board would actually throw away perfectly good stuff.
Most know enough to smell and taste.

I think a lot of it is down to education.
A lot of people don't understand the difference between 'use by' and 'best before'.
A lot of people don't know what can be chucked into the freezer.

preciousillusions wrote: »

I agree with a lot that has been said in here but i wanted to make one point: Sometimes, food wastage has nothing to do with being greedy, immoral or shallow. There are other reasons that I won't go into too much but fear or illness/disorder, basically. It isn't always a case of people just being ignorant and lazy.

As I said above, I think a lot of it is down to education, so I think it is ignorance of using stuff up to a great extent.

Rainy-Days

I can't agree with you entirely on this Fuddle, sorry - because there are bigger issues at hand. The supermarkets are the primary drivers of this and it is they who are setting these standards.

On the backdrop of that there is all sorts of extra things going on, there is the labour, the fuel costs (not just harvesting but planting as well and getting it to store) there are the resources that are involved not just the diesel for the farm machinery, but everything from the growing process to the harvest to getting it into the stores perfectly washed and bagged - all that was shown last night was pre-packed. Go into every supermarket and only a small amount is actually loose fruit and veg. If I only want two Leeks why do I need to buy a pack that has four in it? Even though buying two loose leeks works out more expensive than the pre-packed stuff!

Classic was last week I got a pack of charlotte new potatoes, it was actually cheaper to buy the pack than actually buy the exact quantity that I needed loosely? What happened? I threw the remainder out this week because they were not going to get used! Thats just mad and it's downright wasteful, but in truth it was the cheapest way of buying it!

We have become accustomed to buying food already washed and prepared - through laziness in some part but also for asthetics by the supermarkets. If we were forced into only buying what was needed - i.e. not pre-packed then the rate of household food waste would - in theory I hope - drop.

I constantly read and hear people saying that they resent the BOGOFF offers because simply they just want one item. If they actually halved the price of that one item it would make life easier and I agree on that point. Classic one is Lurpak spreadable. I don't want two 500g packs of butter for £4.00 I just want one so why can't I have it for £2.00 why do I need to pay £3.25 for a single one? The supermarkets drive it because it's turnover and revenue boosting. The shareholders are to blame as well constantly pushing the supermarket for bigger profits to fuel even bigger dividends!

So in summary you are sort of rightin that we are all part of the cycle of this, but the biggest culprit by far and away is the supermarkets and it is their tactics that need to change!

VfM4meplse

Rainy-Days wrote: »

So in summary you are sort of rightin that we are all part of the cycle of this, but the biggest culprit by far and away is the supermarkets and it is their tactics that need to change!

I hate to sound like Lord Sugar, but the reality is that the primary aim of businesses is to turn a profit. Operating under a social conscientious model is a very different thing and is only tolerated when profits aren't compromised in the process.

Its a lovely capitalist world we live in

Rainy-Days

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I hate to sound like Lord Sugar, but the reality is that the primary aim of businesses is to turn a profit. Operating under a social conscientious model is a very different thing and is only tolerated when profits aren't compromised in the process.

Its a lovely capitalist world we live in

You know what you are right! Years ago when the Body Shop first started to become really well known I used to buy their products allot. I liked Anita Roddick's ethics. Her novel approiach to recycling packaging. I liked her business approach and the fact that everything was ethically done.

What happened - well she sold out to L'Oreal the biggest one who test on animals and whose general ethics are bothersome. Okay she''s not the only one Liz Earle did it with Avon as well. Difficult for those of us who supported both companies because of their stance to then sell out to the highest bidder!

Edited to add as an afterthought - if you have a company with good business ethics it becomes a good selling point. Treat suppliers fairly and have a ethical approach and you can still turn a healthy profit. Roddick sold out for around £440 million - not bad going really!

[Deleted User]

Rainy-Days wrote: »

Jack-Pott you miss the point entirely! The farmers are planting crops to excess simply because the amount of rejects on the product is exponentially high. So, by over planting the waste goes through the roof because the standard set by the supermarkets is just ridiculous!

I've already answered that argument from somebody else yesterday. There is oversupply and rock bottom prices in the milk market too, are you going to tell me that's because the milk is mis-shapen?

If you listened carefully in 2004 and again I think it was 2009 they said there was two poor harvest for potatoes (and another veg) and the over supply of what was previously categorised, by the big four as 'the rejects', was put into the normal supply chain

If you had been reading carefully you would have noticed that I've already referred to that guy on this thread two days ago.

It is the basic abject principle of supply and demand

That's exactly the point I'm making: too much supply, so the buyers have got the farmers over a barrel. The farmers' enemy is the other farmers they're competing with, not the supermarkets. If there was a shortage people would be glad to eat whatever shape food they could get their hands on. We can't eat all the food, so the surplus will continue to go to waste until such time as the farmers produce less of it.

[Deleted User]

Rainy-Days wrote: »

If I only want two Leeks why do I need to buy a pack that has four in it?

One reason for the recent increase in pre-packed foods is that it prevents people from rejecting the mis-shapes and only buying the pretty stuff. There will be more of that if Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall gets his way.

Rainy-Days

jack_pott wrote: »

I've already answered that argument from somebody else yesterday. There is oversupply and rock bottom prices in the milk market too, are you going to tell me that's because the milk is mis-shapen?



If you had been reading carefully you would have noticed that I've already referred to that guy on this thread two days ago.



That's exactly the point I'm making: too much supply, so the buyers have got the farmers over a barrel. The farmers' enemy is the other farmers they're competing with, not the supermarkets. If there was a shortage people would be glad to eat whatever shape food they could get their hands on. We can't eat all the food, so the surplus will continue to go to waste until such time as the farmers produce less of it.

Woo hoo steady on! Pull your horns in! I did not read your threads from two days ago, because the programme was only on last night so I was commenting directly from the actual screening from yesterday.

So, given that you have given nothing short of a pretty hysterical and nasty reply - I intend to well and truly ignore anything that you post going forwards. Perhaps it would be best if you take that standardised approach with my postings as well as it will make for a much better more pleasant existence on here.

[Deleted User]

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I hate to sound like Lord Sugar, but the reality is that the primary aim of businesses is to turn a profit. Operating under a social conscientious model is a very different thing and is only tolerated when profits aren't compromised in the process.

Its a lovely capitalist world we live in

If there are too many farmers, they have two choices: sell cheaper than the farmer down the road, or quit the business.

There is cut-throat competition between farmers now, but there would have been among blacksmiths and wainwrights when tractors replaced the horse as well, should farmers have rejected tractors and continued with horse power instead?

[Deleted User]

Rainy-Days wrote: »

Woo hoo steady on! Pull your horns in! I did not read your threads from two days ago, because the programme was only on last night so I was commenting directly from the actual screening from yesterday.

So, given that you have given nothing short of a pretty hysterical and nasty reply - I intend to well and truly ignore anything that you post going forwards. Perhaps it would be best if you take that standardised approach with my postings as well as it will make for a much better more pleasant existence on here.

The program was first screened on Monday, before the two posts I referred to. My argument was neither hysterical nor nasty, but your response is fairly typical of those from people who run out of counter arguments: accusing their opponent of being offensive. Which phrase is it you object to, "If you had been reading carefully..."? I wonder where that came from.

[Deleted User]

I think we ALL as a nation need to look at our attitude to waste and not just because of the recent HFW programme. It's a very recent phenomenon that allows us to have the leeway in expenditure that lets us buy, buy, buy and throw away what we've deemed not necessary any longer. In the not too distant past, certainly as close as the after WW2 period we were still under rationing! Nothing was wasted because there wasn't enough to waste, there was barely enough to keep body and soul together and certainly clothing would be remade, re purposed, turned into cleaning cloths, made into clothes for the children certainly NOT thrown in the dustbin. What was left, the small bits that weren't big enough to make a whole garment would have been put into the rag bag and most likely used for patchwork. We've gotten used to having excesses and stopped valuing our posessions, we have centrally heated homes and instant food available, 24 hour TV and 24 hour facebook, twitter and mobile phone coverage, 24 hour entertainment from game consoles etc. we're used to instant and easy and have come to take it all as ours by right. It's really no wonder lots of folks have stopped thinking for themselves and are completely oblivious to their wasteful and unsustainable habits. How to break those habits? I wish I knew. I think we have to lead from the front, no manner of instructions and recommendations will change habits that are ingrained but setting an example so folks can see the benefits of what we OSers do, that might just work.