Hacker News Reader

Comment by feross | Hacker News Reader

> The "eat ugly fruit!" movement is classist as FUCK. You've got to have a debilitating level of ignorance to assume that if Whole Paycheck Market doesn't stock ugly fruit, it must be getting "wasted."

It is possible to not know much about the agricultural industry without being "classist as fuck." There are an infinite number of things one can learn about and a finite amount of time. While the content is interesting, I find the condescending tone off-putting.

Are there advantages to this communication style that I'm missing?

View on HN

I think what this quote is responding to is people disseminating some first world millennial's first uninformed guess about an issue as if were a revolution and a blessing to the world, instead of stopping to think that their precious intellectual virtues are not limited to people of their class, education, and supposed intelligence.

The idea that our enlightened attitudes set us apart from the rest of unwashed humanity is our fake news -- the stuff we consume unreflectively because it flatters us and plays nicely with our prejudices. Presented in a neutral context, the idea that the agricultural industry was throwing away significant quantities of produce because of aesthetic flaws would meet a lot of skepticism. Presented in the context of you are special because you understand how wrong this practice is and special people like us can help save the world by fixing this problem the idea gets uncritically accepted and widely shared on social media.

Calling people "classist as fuck" is designed to startle and threaten exactly the people who tend to accept these narratives uncritically, and put them in a frame of mind to consider that they might be wrong. Whatever the truth of the issue is, we won't get there unless we stop seeing ourselves as the hero of the story.

>...and put them in a frame of mind to consider that they might be wrong.

You are entirely correct, but I think what GP is saying is that there's a very specific kind of person who goes from being insulted on the Internet to open to reflection and it's not most people.

That's true when they're reacting to criticism from outside their tribe, but "classist as fuck" (and the whole rest of the rant) sounds like it comes from the same perspective that people were trying to inhabit by buying into the "rescue ugly produce" story. This creates a "the calls are coming from inside the house" moment that makes people nervous that they're on the wrong side of the issue, so when the issue comes to their doorstep (somebody is marketing some "ugly produce" product or service to them) they might look into the specifics instead of blithely accepting it at face value.

As someone who was only briefly acquainted with the "buy ugly produce" idea in the first place and thought it sounded vaguely good. I never looked into actually taking action because I couldn't be bothered.

I do think they are being unkind and rude. There were too sides here the "scammers" and the clueless good people who got taken for a ride. Alienating the latter group is a mistake and will just make people avoid you because they will never be good enough for you anyway.

I on the other hand, feel vindicated in my apathy. "Trying to do good is a waste of time, the world is too ungrateful"

I guess the author was upset that a great many people parroted the 'ugly fruits get disposed' line without doing any research. I might have mentioned it myself, because it was all over the news. I can understand why someone who works in the industry would find this frustrating - it's basically just fake news and the damage is real. A rebuttal would get nowhere near the press the sensationalist original story would get.

The lesson from this is - share stories only within your area of expertise.

What is the damage? What does it matter which fruits are bought first at the supermarket?

The ugly fruit movement is much bigger than that, and has its own markets and sale areas. Farmers (often in collaboration with startups (not all for-profit)) will divert this produce to sell to the middle-class people worried about this, since they pay more than the jam makers, but at the end of the market day some will throw away leftovers which are not worth the time to haul back, sort, etc. So it can actually increase food waste.

Are not you assuming the varieties used for canning etc are the same for sale in supermarkets.

This is precisely what the OP (with expertise in this field) is stating.

See the statement about Honeycrisp apples.

Yes there are varieties more suited to different purposes, and there may be some that are grown specifically for those other purposes (e.g. a variety might be selectively bred with higher pectin for jam-making), but commercial producers of things like soup, pies, jams etc are a prime destination for ugly instances of supermarket-shelf varieties.

It's similar to Equifax/Yahoo/any other careless/evil corporation paying for ads berating people for not using stronger passwords.

I work for a farmer who makes apple juice of various varieties. He used to use raspberries that were ‘seconds’ which wouldn’t fit supermarket criteria for selling by themselves. He pressed and used them for juicing for one variety he made.

As of last year the farm he bought them off no longer bothers to harvest seconds because it’s not worth it to them in the cost of labour to pick, sort and sell them.

So yes in certain cases this fruit is being wasted and people paying more for it would cause less of it to rot.

How is the farm harvesting? Raspberries are especially perishable - especially when damaged. Eventually I think everyone involved needs to admit that the economics just don't work, and that at smaller scales, composting isn't awful.

For large raspberry growers here in WA, most berries are mechanically harvested and sent off to be processed into juices, extracts, concentrates, etc. One producer I know ships them over the Cascades in milk tankers. (Faster, fresher, less handling.) They can go from the farm to the factory line in under eight hours.

Berries by the pint, and even IQF (individually-quick frozen) berries command a HUGE premium, and are often hand harvested. You can't take those labor costs downmarket and make the economics work.

I just wanted to chime in and comment further on your statement.

>that at smaller scales, composting isn't awful.

And note that in cases like this, having worked on an organic fruit farm, it is often very difficult to actually compost the unused fruit seconds. Very acidic fruit in large quantities does not generally make for a good compost. It requires a lot more work to deal with a mountain of lemons for instance in a compost to get a usable soil composition. Most people don't ever encounter issues like this because a households normal compost is varied enough that you won't have this problem.

A lot of times nothing will grow or you won't get a very good yield out of really acidic soil for the most part.

All this is to say that the fruit in your example is probably literally being put to no purpose whatsoever and is almost assuredly not being composted.

That's a good point. I can see how it would be really crop and situation dependent.

Since we're talking about bad things that can happen with old fruit - one more story where composting is truly awful. There was a lawsuit in these parts a few years ago where several hunters were severely burned after falling through into a pile of decomposing grape mash. Apparently it can reach temperatures in excess of 500° when highly concentrated:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/30/news/adna-grapes30

>So yes in certain cases this fruit is being wasted and people paying more for it would cause less of it to rot.

So how do you know they wouldn't just plant more if people paid more?

Why would you plant more when you can satisfy all your ugly customers with your existing production?

If the total demand is stable then you'd need less perfect crop and you could actually plant less to sell the same amount at the same price.

I think it's pretty simple: People absolutely love drama. Calling someone out feels good, and people love to follow along. It gets irritating when people make super broad accusations like this, but I believe it's in a similar vein to how politics on Twitter is mostly people trying to out snark everyone else.

In this situation I'd say the consumer is the victim of being misled, but you stir up a lot more people by accusing both parties!

Others are pointing out that the author is rightly frustrated. Of course, but most people don't accidentally make broad accusations of problematic isms, either.

This is a pernicious problem in modern politics in general. Sell the easy-to-react-to emotional story to people and they'll turn it into some big movement without stopping to check the facts. This leads to people believing lies and advocating for existing sensible systems to be changed because they believed those lies.

> Of course, but most people don't accidentally make broad accusations of problematic isms, either.

Have you been on twitter before?

"Dirty little secrets Dirty little lies We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie We love to cut you down to size We love dirty laundry

We can do "The Innuendo" We can dance and sing When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing We all know that Kraft is king Give us dirty laundry!"

Dirty Laundry - Don Henley

The author is just expressing their frustration of having to constantly correct this particular strain of naivete. Contained naivete (e.g. keeping incorrect opinions to oneself) is mostly harmless to everybody, but if naivete spreads that's bad.

Of course, there's also the "outrage gets you likes" aspect, but I guess if I were in the agriculture field I might have reason to genuinely be somewhat outraged.

I probably wouldn't call it classist af for someone to not understand efficiencies of agricultural logistics, though..

>The author is just expressing their frustration of having to constantly correct this particular strain of naivete

Why do they have to "constantly correct" it? What is their business?

Besides, it's not really "naivete".

Eating uglier fruit and vegetables is still good advice, to not get sucked buyinh tasteless but nice-looking produce that selectively breeds for size and color over taste, and even uses BS tricks like coloring and such to make it more appealing.

    > Eating uglier fruit and vegetables is still good advice...

The OP was describing the "naive" people who shop at Whole Foods (or other premium grocery stores) and then complain about the wasted or missing "ugly" produce. They're thinking that if the ugly stuff isn't at their fancy grocery store it must have been thrown away when, in fact, the "ugly" produce has merely been diverted away to other vendors and uses which they're simply not aware of.

The irony that is lost upon them is that by walking into their fancy grocery store, they're basically signalling to the grocery store that they're willing to pay a high price for what the grocery store and their demographic has deemed "unblemished" produce that meets certain criteria for size and appearance.

In a sense it is totally fair to call out such naivete. Instead of complaining to Whole Foods, these folks should just shop elsewhere. The price will be lower, the flavors will be different (usually better), and yes, there will more blemishes and unexpected size and appearance.

To actually find that "ugly" produce one needs to go to the discount/ethnic groceries. In the Northeastern US, that just means finding the Asian and Hispanic produce vendors and going there for produce. There are _some_ other vendors which are beginning to catch on, "Produce Junction" comes to mind.

The offputting tone wouldn't be quite as objectionable (imo) if the argument wasn't so FUCKing wrong.

> Most "ugly" produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam, ice cream, etc. You think that stuff gets made from the pretty fruit & veggies?! jeebus, think about it for a minute

I've thought about it, and yes, that stuff gets made from the pretty fruit & veggies. Sure, a LOT of it gets made from the rejected "ugly" fruit from other supply chains, and—also—even in cases where it's being made from the pretty ones, they're not filtering out the "ugly" ones, so generally all the food is used in those cases. BUT, no, we don't have a perfect interoperable system where every ag supplier has equal and complimentary arrangements with supermarkets and salsa factories. Not every packing house is the same (not every one separates out the uglies), and not every one supplies salsa makers. There is PLENTY of waste in between.

> The amt of produce wasted bc of labor problems (can't get a crew to harvest) & bad weather (melons that rot in the field bc it's too hot & wet, etc) WAY outstrips produce thrown out bc it's "ugly."

She may be right here (would like to see some data, but still—the statement seems plausible), but in what way does that nullify the fact that plenty of produce is still thrown out? In what way does labour/weather-problem-related waste mean we shouldn't also try to reduce waste in areas where we very easily can?

> IT GOES TO THE GROCERY STORES THAT POOR PEOPLE SHOP AT

This sentence from the same person who just used the phrase "classist as fuck"!?

>This sentence from the same person who just used the phrase "classist as fuck"!?

There's nothing classist about acknowledging the fact that poor and rich people often shop in different stores.

The notion that frugality implies poverty is classist, not to mention inaccurate.

Do you deny that there are both rich people and poor people? Do you deny that there are high-end, expensive grocery stores, and low-end, cheap grocery stores? Do you believe poor people shop at those high-end stores?

If you answered 3x NO, then nitpicking this point as being "classist" is, to paraphrase, dumb as fuck.

Not to mention the effect of neighborhood re: nearby shopping options. I've lived in very poor and fairly rich neighborhoods, and the difference in quality of local grocery stores is dramatic. There are chains I didn't realize even existed, because they targeted different class neighborhoods. And even within a chain, the level of effort put into a given franchise location can vary pretty dramatically as well.

And that's in the states. In the UK, it's a running joke that the different supermarket chains are subdivided along class lines.

The claim is odd though. In my experience, the selection of fruits and vegetables differs mostly in variety, not quality.

If there is a quality difference, then it might be the other way around, because supermarkets targeting well-off customers tend to have more organic produce, which is almost always grade B.

Fancy supermarkets probably want 'fancy' fruits and vegetables. 'Fancy' often meaning fancy-looking rather than fancy tasting.

Quality usually differs by region? West vs East Europe Chocolat comes to mind.

Wrong. Rich people don’t shop. They aren’t even aware of how their fridge gets stocked. They got too many helpers! Those helpers shop at the same stores us regular folks shop at!

(But seriously, is there really such stories that exist as poor/rich or are these just the same stores in different areas?)

> (But seriously, is there really such stories that exist as poor/rich or are these just the same stores in different areas?)

I wouldn't say poor vs rich stores, but there are supermarkets which compete on pricing and others that compete on 'experience'. The first would have low prices, put out produce in the boxes it came in, employ less workers, etc (ALDI where I am from) and the latter will focus on all the food looking pretty, have nice looking displays, have people in the store making sushi, etc (AH where I am from). Where I live there is a shopping center with 1 of each of these types of stores in it. So no, it is not a matter of geography.

I've honestly never noticed things like that when at supermarkets, while living in Australia or Singapore. I'm gonna watch out now see if I notice any of these sort of things. Thanks.

In Germany, there is still a divide between regular "supermarkets" and "discounters". The latter focus on price at the expense of selection and customer service.

Aldi defined the discount grocery segment in the 60s with their focus on vertical integration and cost savings. In the 90s, all Aldi stores notably used the same sort of ugly tiles for their floors and walls, probably because they got a bulk price on them and they're easy to clean etc. When Aldi stocks new items, the process consists of placing a pallet onto the shop floor and removing the foil around it. For smaller items, they just open up the box and put the entire box in the shelf instead of shelfing items one-by-one. At the checkout, there is no bagger; you're supposed to pack your bags while the cashier is scanning the items.

Aldi also waited much longer than anyone else before introducing barcode scanners at their checkouts. Since they stocked only one of every type of item (e.g. only one type of sugar, one type of flour, etc.), there were so few items that cashiers could just memorize the codes for each product. It was quite impressive to see a cashier punching codes into the register at a rapid pace while the flood of items scrolls past them. I may misremember it, but it may have been faster than scanning barcodes.

When Aldi introduced barcodes in the early 2000s, they modified the packaging of items so that barcodes were not only placed at one corner, but instead stretched across the whole side, so that the items could be scanned more reliably.

The divide between supermarkets and discounters is blurring, though. The Aldi store next door just got a redesign and now looks confusingly welcoming. Kind of un-German. I always think of Aldi as a place where shopping is done efficiently first and foremost, and the new design does not really reflect that. It makes it look like a regular supermarket (although still at the size of a discounter).

> The Aldi store next door just got a redesign and now looks confusingly welcoming

In the UK they seem to have taken store design up a notch, to the point that there's a discernible difference with the Lidl experience (along with now being a tad more expensive on equivalent products). I suspect it's an incremental differentiator in retaining the more affluent customers they captured over the past decade. Lidl, on the other hand, offers a more mixed experience: for the most part, they're still quite dowdy and utilitarian, although they have what seem like experimental stores that appear to be competing in affluent areas with an Aldi presence (larger, open layouts; brighter lighting; polished, natural floor tiles etc.). The kinds of customers I usually find at Lidl are notably absent.

I live near the border between the Netherlands and Germany and since German supermarkets are cheaper by a lot I go to Germany to buy groceries every now and then. The ALDI there has incredibly fast cashiers. And I mean REALLY fast: The only way to keep up with the cashier is almost to swipe everything in your cart with both hands, you have to as well, because there is only about 50-80cm of 'runway' after the scanning. There is some sort of docking bay for your cart right after that. So everything is designed for a speedy check-out. We once commented to the cashier that they are so incredibly fast and she said that it is due to the scanners they use, they can scan a product in almost any orientation so that she doesn't have to be very accurate or remember where the barcode is for every product.

Due to this incredible speed at check-out, the same number of employees can process a far larger number of customers than the super market in the Netherlands that I go to. Very smart.

I think you’re making a mistake confusing rich/well-off with ultra-wealthy. For the most part, rich people do their own shopping at Whole Foods not at the discount markets in China Town. Or they do Blue Apron or whatever. Ultra-wealthy people have hired help doing their daily tasks.

For example, here in Portland there’s Grocery Outlet (stocks out-of-season/discontinued/damaged/nearly expired stuff at great prices) less than 2 blocks from a Whole Foods. I shop at both but otherwise don’t see a lot of overlap in the clientele.

Wealthy people don't shop, plenty of rich people do. If you're saying this, consider that others may think of you as rich.

> offputting tone

Says the guy that uses FUCK in his comment. Hi pot, meet kettle.

> Not every packing house is the same (not every one separates out the uglies), and not every one supplies salsa makers.

That's not how the system functions. Most produce is auctioned off with strict quality ratings. No contracts needed.

> In what way does labour/weather-problem-related waste mean we shouldn't also try to reduce waste in areas where we very easily can?

The ugly fruit movement claims that:

> About 20-40% of Produce is Wasted Worldwide, this is mostly due to strict cosmetic standards from large grocers that dictate exactly how their fruit and veggies should look

This is the point she's refuting and you're right: she may be right here.

> This sentence from the same person who just used the phrase "classist as fuck"!?

There are poor people. There are businesses focussing on this demographic. Simply stating those facts doesn't make you classist.

>Are there advantages to this communication style that I'm missing?

Wokeness points

> Are there advantages to this communication style that I'm missing?

Invoking an offended identity group is a necessary condition of getting something to fly on Twitter.

A behaviour can be classist, whether there is intent or not.

Similarly, some hiring practices wind up preferring men over women or vice versa, and are thus sexist. Whether that was the intent or not, the outcome is the same.

Well, she does say it's "enraging" and I can imagine (if her story is true) so it gives some real emotion to the story. Is it most effective? I don't know, depends on the goal I guess.

If you start a massive flame war, you get a bigger audience. People come for the drama and once they're there, they're listening to you.

The most heavily funded "ugly produce" subscription box got all the way through their Shark Tank episode without anyone even bringing this up.

Twitter has had enough people posting in anger, that it has become culturally acceptable for anyone to do it.

I can't help but wonder about the upbringing of the folks who act out in anger, in public (posting on the internet is public).

Would you talk this way around your parents, peers, kids? I hope not. The internet is not any different - they're someone's parents, peers and kids, reading your posts.

I’m guessing the kind of folks who post in anger care more for the drama they create and the followers that come with that, than their public image.

As long as you share useful information instead of just hateful ranting with nothing for any reader to gain I don't mind it.

But the irony is so good! She's being a dick to the people she's supposedly trying to inform, telling them that their misguided acts to try to "save the wasted food" are for naught, and that they are classist. Yet claiming everyone who isn't informed has "a debilitating level of ignorance" and is classist, is classist itself! (And ableist!)

I think social media is designed to perpetuate superiority complexes. The vocal minority that post most often seem to think a lot of themselves and not much of everyone else.

It seems like pretty normal Twitter style?

Ignorance is no excuse. You might not be classist if you're too ignorant to understand the thing you're passionately protesting, but you're many other voluntarily bad things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com