Hugh's War on Waste

Justamum

fuddle wrote: »

I have been both a dream and a nightmare for marketing executives. I do believe that it isn't the consumer alone that has created this evil, it's down to years of being marketed to, manipulated, whole careers born out of consumer thinking/psychology and selling tactics to take advantage of that. We have been sold to to the point of it manipulating our very being, I believe anyway.

I fully agree with you. 'Fashion' is a case in point and a big bug-bear with me. We're told what is going to be 'big' next season in order for us to go out and buy it so that we're seen as 'fashionable'. However it wouldn't necessarily be fashionable unless people were told that it was going to be so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I absolutely refuse to be manipulated by it (most of what passes off as fashion is pretty awful anyway)

[Deleted User]

I've got 3 sweatshirts that I got the year we arrived here from Quality Seconds (anyone remember them as a chain?) they cost me £2.99p each and here we are 23 years later and the fabric of them is still as good as the day I bought them. They get machine dyed when they fade , that's happened twice now and they're coming up for another go in the near future, they are not likely to ever go out of fashion because they have never been in fashion, my word though they're tough little workhorses and I'll keep them going as long as I can. I guess they were well made in the first place not like the shoddy materials and workmanship that typifies clothing manufacture today. I also have a lovely padded waxed jacket that I've had far longer than 23 years, it gets used every year, we've re-waxed it a couple of times but again it's well made and just keeps going and will probably outlast me!!!

martinsurrey

GreyQueen wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point? Apologies if I'm being dense, it's been a long day.

If a farmer anticipates that only 20% of his crop will be cosmetically perfect enough, he has to over-produce grossly to get enough to deliver. If the standard would mean that 80-90% were good enough, he would be sowing less to start with, using less fertiliser, fewer pesticides, using less water, using less fuel for the machinery and being more efficient overall. It wouldn't compute that more efficient farming would mean that contracts would be lost, because all the supplying farms would be doing the same thing.

If the supermarkets currently take 20% of what he grows and they then start taking 80%

Would that farmer really grow 80% less, or would he grow the same, and Morrisions would only need one supplier and not 5, they still only need the same amount of veg.

Would the 4 farmers who are losing their contracts not try and win them back by offering lower prices?

End result is that we have less farmers (as some would go out of business) and the price they get per unit would be lower but they would sell more than 20%, great for the farmer that keeps the contract but not so good for his friends.

Blue_Doggy

It may be a hopeful sign, or just a blip, but I buy a lot of carrots and lately the prepacked carrots from Waitrose have been "wonky" - some of them have bends or kinks or even splits. They also sell what they call "weather-blemished" apples and pears (pretty much indistinguishable from any others) - I make a point of buying those.

On the subject of washed veg, I do remember when I was a child my Mum shopped at the local greengrocer, and wasn't too impressed when there was a lot of mud on the potatoes - a little was ok, but sometimes you could chip off clods, an expensive way of buying a part of someone's field.

[Deleted User]

fuddle wrote: »

I think it goes deeper than a documentary jack_pott.

Of course it does. There are too many farmers producing too much, and it's fatuous to suggest that the solution is for us to eat the surplus food.

fuddle

jack_pott wrote: »

Of course it does. There are too many farmers producing too much, and it's fatuous to suggest that the solution is for us to eat the surplus food.

In my opinion there are enough farmers producing and to suggest that it's ok for farmer not to produce then we're in very dodgy territory in my opinion. Not all land in UK is able to be grown on, but everyone is in agreement that they are over producing, even the farmers themselves.

The farmers really would like to produce less because that would mean less overheads and more profit for them. They can't produce less because of the strict quality controls placed upon them by the supermarkets.

I don't know where the solution has been that we eat the surplus food really. What the vast majority have discussed both here and on the programme is that we all need to do our bit to make it acceptable for all parties to love wonky, blemished food items. This would reduce the need for over production, the supermarkets would buy in what the consumers require and the consumers would be able to pick their fruit and veg to their requirements as opposed to being sold packs of veg.

It's a scandal that there is food wastage. I have been reading up on Morrisons ideas for less then perfect veg. There has been some suggestion that Morrison's are thinking of producing soups that contain less than perfect veg. I just don't get this at all. So the farmers still have to produce to their strict guidelines for 'perfect' veg but instead of ploughing the unnecessary wastage (caused pretty much by these strict guidelines) they are going to produce more, fresh food items for the consumer - at a price, that there isn't an extra market for and that will undoubtedly go into landfill at the end of the day.

No the answer isn't eat the surplus for me, it's about being appreciative of the natural growing process and eradicating that value for money = visual conformity.

[Deleted User]

I might be alone in this but I rarely buy ready packed veg or fruit, much preferring to choose the ones I want from the loose produce that is available, 1) it's invariably cheaper to buy loose than pre packed, 2) I can choose the biggest in diameter in things like carrots/parsnips which means less wastage in peelings (I hate with a passion the little weedy thin ones in the pre packs) and 3) the loose veg/fruit keep much better and longer than the pre packed ones which tend to be damp inside the packs when you open them. All in all the loose produce is a much better and economical way of buying.

martinsurrey

fuddle wrote: »

The farmers really would like to produce less because that would mean mean less overheads and more profit for them. They can't produce less because of the strict quality controls placed upon them by the supermarkets.

That is not true...

They would like to SELL more.

supermarket need 1,000 tons of carrots, it can get 1,000 tons by getting the best 25% of farmers a,b,c,d and e production, they each produce 800 tonns of carrots.

The supermarket decides it will lower standards and take 80% of the produce, and lower prices by 20% to cover the lower perceived quality (which will increase demand by say 20%).

so now they have 5 farmers producing 4,000 tons and they only need 1,200

are all 5 farmers going to say "okay then lets just keep the same percentage, supply 240 tones and only produce 300 tons each"

no, farmer a will try and sell all of his production, all 640 tons that meet the new standard, farmer b,c,d and e will try the same, the result is the supermarket now only need 2 suppliers to meet their demand, the other 3 go out of business, and the price per unit falls (as a,b,c,d,e had to compete on price to try and get the contract)

You lower the standards required and you would have massive competition between farmers to supply the supermarkets. the less efficient farmers (read as smaller) would go to the wall very quickly.

edit,

its called the economies of scale, each farmer makes more money by maximizing his production, and the winner is the one who can produce the most for the lowest average cost.

[Deleted User]

Perhaps we could save the farmers by buying from them direct rather than going through the middle man that is the supermarket? I'd certainly welcome the opportunity to buy a sack of potatoes/carrots/onions etc direct from the farm/farm shop and be happy to take the mix of shapes and sizes that came in that sack. I suspect that those farmers currently under contract to the supermarkets aren't allowed to actually sell to the public any produce that is rejected by the supermarket buyers which might be the real cause of ploughing back in perfectly useable crops. Are there any farmers actually here on MSE who could give us the true picture???

missbiggles1

Justamum wrote: »

The Morrisons men said that their customers demand 'perfect' fruit and veg. The only reason people are used to that is because of the supermarkets. THEY started demanding perfection so customers got used to buying it. When I was younger it came in all shapes and sizes and nobody cared as long as it tastes good.

That's another gripe I have - what's happened to the flavour these days? Cox apples for instance - I like a crisp, slightly under-ripe one with lots of green. The only ones I see on sale these days, even though they are 'fresh' are going yellow which to me is the sign of it 'going over'. I prefer to buy tasty English apples when in season, but they're very rarely found. Worcester Permain, Discovery, Russetts, all difficult to find. However the shops are always full of tasteless imported apples (even New Zealand Coxes aren't the same).

Apples don't necessarily have to be fresh and most varieties can be stored happily for a couple of months. This may be the reason for the colour change you're seeing and rejecting them seems to be part of the "wanting everything to be perfect "problem.