Hugh's War on Waste

Sue14

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

It all comes back to that horribly over used word 'PERFECT' that is applied to all areas of life we humans are supposed to aspire to attaining, Christmas, appearance, home interiors.....it doesn't actually exist but still we're made to feel second class if we don't constantly strive to achieve it!

I used to always try to be perfect in all aspects of my life, but I'm a lot more relaxed since I realized that 'perfect' and 'perfection' are just made up words in the dictionary, and not something that actually exists, lol!

NewShadow wrote: »

Off topic (well not the topic of the thread, the topic of the current discussion)

Does anyone have a suggestion for the best way to keep carrots?

Don't know if it's the best way to keep them, but I always put mine in the salad tray in the fridge, and they last ages.

Justamum wrote: »

And this encourages people to buy stuff on credit in order to achieve that dream. My DH was always comparing our rather simple way of life with the way other people he knew lived - holidays, lots of nice new things - and I'd tell him that they were probably in hock up their eyeballs. A case in point. A former friend of his was always buying stuff and living a nice life even though he didn't really earn more than my DH. His marriage broke up a few years ago due to various factors, and the wife re-married. DH is working with the new husband now, and he told DH that his wife had only just finished paying off the huge credit card bills that former hubby had run up. This is from about 5 years ago (and she earns good money so wouldn't have been paying off the minimum each month!) DH now realises what what I've been telling him is true - live frugally and debt-free and you're much happier.

So many people buying the 'must-haves' on plastic.

My OH works with a few people who live on credit, some of which have been declared bankrupt because of their debts, and a good friend of mine got in a hell of a mess, because she was living beyond her means to keep up with other friends, luckily she has seen the error of her ways and now only spends the cash she can afford to spend, as she is scared of getting into debt again. Luckily OH and I have always had the same attitude, if we can't afford it we go without until we've saved up for it, because that's the way we were both brought up. We may not have all the brand new furniture and foreign holidays, and our meals out might be just in a supermarket cafe, the local pub or the carvery, rather than a posh restaurant, but we also don't have the mountain of debt keeping us awake at night so we are much happier.

Pollycat

Ken68 wrote: »

Perfect team......Martin and Hugh...should be on Strictly Come Dancing.

Hmmm.

But which one would wear the dress and go backwards? :rotfl:

Reya

jack_pott wrote: »

If supermarkets buy ugly fruit & veg, that puts a bigger surplus on the shelves of shops that are already wasting too much. If consumers then buy the surplus and make HFWs smoothies and soups with it, that puts more food in the bellies of consumers who are already too overweight.

That would only take one or two growing seasons to even out, though, surely? Once the farmers were aware that the supermarkets would take any produce, regardless of wonkiness, they wouldn't need to over-plant. Thus: there wouldn't be shelves so piled high that shoppers had to wade through a metaphorical sea of parsnips.

Hypothetical example:

Current Situation

• Supermarket demand: 10 tonnes of Grade A perfect parsnips
• Farmer knows average 10 tonne crop yields only 5 tonnes of Grade A - half of the yield - so plants 10 tonnes extra (total 20 tonnes planted, half of each yield [5 tonnes] making up the required 10 tonnes) to ensure meeting supermarket's requirements
• Farmer supplies 10 tonnes of Grade A parsnips to supermarket
• Excess 10 tonnes of < Grade A parsnips get ploughed back into the field, at cost to farmer

Interim Situation

• Supermarket demand: 10 tonnes of parsnips, any grade, any wonkiness
• Farmer has already planted extra 10 tonnes, expecting the usual Grade A demand
• Farmer supplies 10 tonnes of any-grade parsnips to supermarket
• Excess 10 tonnes are ploughed back into the field, at cost to farmer, OR there may be a 'parsnip glut' for one single growing season. People who like parsnips buy a few more, and maybe get a little bit plusher that year

Final Situation

• Supermarket demand: 10 tonnes of parsnips, any grade, any wonkiness
• Farmer plants 10 tonnes*, now knowing supermarket will take all grades
• Farmer supplies 10 tonnes* of any grade parsnips to supermarket
• No excess ploughed back into the field. No excess parsnips on the shelf, people don't get any plusher.

*Qualifier: This assumes, of course, a typical harvest. I'm not a farmer, so I don't claim to know (and I won't assume) how they would account for the possibility of a poor harvest, and if they would over-plant, just in case.

There is, of course, the final thought that there are only so many parsnips one can eat. I can't see already-overweight people piling double the amount of parsnips into their shopping trolleys, just because there are more on the shelves. The current 'obesity epidemic' isn't caused by eating too many healthy vegetables, after all.

As to Morrisons' "courgette experiment"... all I can say is that I worked in a laboratory for 20 years. Any so-called experiment that was as heavily biased and weighted toward one desired outcome as that one was would be laughed out of any scientific establishment.

A true experiment rules out as much potential bias as it can and levels the playing field. The courgettes should have been:

• of an identical age and freshness¹
• mixed together in the same box²
• simply labelled as 'courgettes' and priced the same³
• set out in that manner in multiple store locations up and down the country over a period of several full trading weeks. One month would probably be enough, to capture all of the shoppers who might not buy from the store on a once-per-week basis. However, if I were carrying out this test in all seriousness for the company (instead of for a PR exercise) I would have run it in every store for the entire courgette season.⁴

¹The 'perfect' courgettes were fresh, light green, and very firm (Hugh: "That's rock hard."). The 'less-than-perfect' courgettes were old, dark green, and so ripe that when Hugh pushed gently into the end of one with his thumb, it was completely soft inside (Hugh: "That's squidgy."). Since most people 'test-feel' the fresh produce that they buy, this encourages the shopper to decide that the 'perfect' courgettes are the better purchase, as they'll last longer.

²The 'perfect' courgettes were all together in two boxes and the ''less-than-perfect' courgettes were all together in two separate boxes next to them. This invites direct visual comparison, even from a distance as the shopper approaches the display. There is also a visual difference in the fact that the 'perfect' courgettes are on display singly - inviting the shopper to feel how fresh they are - and the 'less-than-perfect' courgettes are on display paired in net bags (clearly Morrisons didn't want to risk the 'less-than-perfect' ones getting mixed up with the 'perfect' ones if/when customers put them back). Both sets of courgettes should have been in net bags, to remove that visual difference.

³The 'perfect' courgettes were labelled "Class 1" and the 'less-than-perfect' courgettes were labelled "Ugly". This plants the notion in the shopper's mind that there is something 'wrong' and/or 'negative' with the 'less-than-perfect' courgettes and that the 'perfect' courgettes are of better quality.

⁴The test was carried out in one single store location only. Morrisons would only "consider" rolling the test out to other stores if the 'less-than-perfect' courgettes proved popular with their customers. The test run-time isn't stated, beyond Hugh saying he would meet with Morrisons' PR representative "in a few weeks' time".

Morrisons' 'experiment' was simply one of confirmation bias. They knew the result they wanted to achieve, and they skewed the test so that they got exactly that. It was so laughable that I was rolling my eyes at it. You don't even need to have any kind of scientific background to see that it was, basically, set up to favour them.

martinsurrey

Reya wrote: »

That would only take one or two growing seasons to even out, though, surely? Once the farmers were aware that the supermarkets would take any produce, regardless of wonkiness, they wouldn't need to over-plant. Thus: there wouldn't be shelves so piled high that shoppers had to wade through a metaphorical sea of parsnips.

Hypothetical example:

Current Situation

• Supermarket demand: 10 tonnes of Grade A perfect parsnips
• Farmer knows average 10 tonne crop yields only 5 tonnes of Grade A - half of the yield - so plants 10 tonnes extra (total 20 tonnes planted, half of each yield [5 tonnes] making up the required 10 tonnes) to ensure meeting supermarket's requirements
• Farmer supplies 10 tonnes of Grade A parsnips to supermarket
• Excess 10 tonnes of < Grade A parsnips get ploughed back into the field, at cost to farmer

Interim Situation

• Supermarket demand: 10 tonnes of parsnips, any grade, any wonkiness
• Farmer has already planted extra 10 tonnes, expecting the usual Grade A demand
• Farmer supplies 10 tonnes of any-grade parsnips to supermarket
• Excess 10 tonnes are ploughed back into the field, at cost to farmer, OR there may be a 'parsnip glut' for one single growing season. People who like parsnips buy a few more, and maybe get a little bit plusher that year

Final Situation

• Supermarket demand: 10 tonnes of parsnips, any grade, any wonkiness
• Farmer plants 10 tonnes*, now knowing supermarket will take all grades
• Farmer supplies 10 tonnes* of any grade parsnips to supermarket
• No excess ploughed back into the field. No excess parsnips on the shelf, people don't get any plusher.

Your example is naive in its assessment of how the open market works.

Add in 9 extra farmers all doing the same, and ask yourself, would the farmer plant half as much or maintain production and try and sell twice as much, would the supermarket prefer to buy from 10 suppliers (10 tons each in your example) or the 5 most efficient ones (each producing 20 tons)?

don't forget that economies of scale mean that the last unit produced is the cheapest one (in a simple case), so the 20 ton farmer is a lot cheaper than the sum of the two 10 ton farmers.

Ilona

It's not only the big supermarkets that throw away food. I was reading the advertisement cards in the window of our village shop today when the owner came out with five starting to look a bit tired bananas. She was about to throw them in the bin and changed her mind and asked me if I wanted them. I gratefully accepted them. Lucky me for passing at the right time.

I thought Hugh was very brave washing that woman's bin out for her. My next door neighbour a young man in his twenties, recycles nothing, it all goes in the general grey bin.

Ilona

NewShadow

martinsurrey wrote: »

Your example is naive in its assessment of how the open market works.

Add in 9 extra farmers all doing the same, and ask yourself, would the farmer plant half as much or maintain production and try and sell twice as much, would the supermarket prefer to buy from 10 suppliers (10 tons each in your example) or the 5 most efficient ones (each producing 20 tons)?

don't forget that economies of scale mean that the last unit produced is the cheapest one (in a simple case), so the 20 ton farmer is a lot cheaper than the sum of the two 10 ton farmers.

I prefer to think simplified than naive.

But I agree - it seems the 'problem' is caused by the farmers (as a collective) oversupplying in an attempt to make as much money as possible - driving the cost down and wastage up - as well as the supermarkets skimming the best produce to generate maximum profit?

I think it's overly simplified to think that the problem can be solved by the supermarkets accepting 'cosmetically different' produce.

It has been established customers will expect it to be sold at a discount, meaning supermartets will buy for less per unit, meaning suppliers (farmers and importers) will need to produce more at lower cost (economy of scale) allowing them to sell at a lower price and secure a greater market share - thus resulting in either increased wastage or more farmers going out of business and a reduced per unit price.

[Deleted User]

Reya wrote: »

Final Situation

• Supermarket demand: 10 tonnes of parsnips, any grade, any wonkiness
• Farmer plants 10 tonnes*, now knowing supermarket will take all grades
• Farmer supplies 10 tonnes* of any grade parsnips to supermarket
• No excess ploughed back into the field. No excess parsnips on the shelf, people don't get any plusher.

And then what happens when the farmer stops growing the extra parsnips? Didn't you read the next paragraphs below the one you quoted:

jack_pott wrote: »

Alternatively, if consumers stop buying what they can't eat, and supermarkets stop buying what they can't sell, that leaves the farmers to stop growing what they can't sell. The farms then have about 25% more staff than they need to feed us all, so if they keep the staff on out of charity they will go out of business because they get undercut by farms that make staff redundant, and if every farm cuts their staff, the smallest ones will go under because they don't have the economy of scale like the larger ones.

Mis-shapes are irrelevant because you're still left having to answer the question about whether you eat the surplus food, or stop growing it in the first place. Dairy farming has the same problem with oversupply as the veg farms, and there is no mis-shapen milk.

The farmer's enemy is the neighbouring farmer who will undercut him, not the supermarket! Reducing waste is a good thing, but it will put more farmers out of business, not fewer!

missbiggles1

honeythewitch wrote: »

But apples, like meat, will taste different according to the method and length of storage? Wont they?

You may prefer the taste of certain things but it's wrong to describe the other as not being fresh or having gone off.

Personally, I prefer slightly unripe bananas and that's what I buy - I certainly don't describe a ripe banana as having gone off and suggest that they shouldn't be sold like that.:)

NewShadow

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Dig yourself a root cellar.:D

Landlord may not be completely impressed by that suggestion... plus - does anyone actually know whats under Cardiff? I shudder at the thought.

Reya

martinsurrey wrote: »

Your example is naive in its assessment of how the open market works.

In reply to that, I will simply quote what I said in the post your response is aimed at:

Reya wrote: »

I'm not a farmer, so I don't claim to know (and I won't assume) how they would account for the possibility of a poor harvest, and if they would over-plant, just in case.

I'm a scientist, not a farmer or an economist, and I am not thoroughly versed in the whys and wherefores of the open market. My opening question in that post included the words "but" and "surely", indicating that I was attempting to understand the notion under offer, rather than offering a confident assessment with a weight of knowledge behind it.

Thank you (ETA: and jack_pott), anyway, for explaining it to me.