Grocery stores throw away so much food. Shame on them.

Shame on us.

Why do we waste so much?

In this time of large population and limited resources it is most important that what resources we do use are used efficiently and not wasted. In this country, very large amounts of food are wasted, thrown away, because of slight blemishes, or slight variations in size, or irregular shapes, that cause 'Grade A' produce buyers to pass them over until they become noticably older, drier, less appealing than others. At this point, or at any point along the distribution line, those produce items which are noticeably less than grade 'A' can be separated from the grade 'A' and offered for sale at a grade 'B' price. There is no need and no sense in holding a bin of tomatoes, with some of them obviously past the point that they will be the first pick of a grade 'A' buyer, but still too good to throw away... there is no sense in holding those all out at a grade 'A' price, until the older items actually deterioriate to the point that they are of no value to anyone. Instead, the grade 'B' items ought to be removed from the grade 'A' pile and given a going market price, (i.e., a price that makes them go, that makes them sell).

There is no reason why those who want perfect tomatoes and unblemished squash should be allowed to dictate the same high 'Grade A' price for everybody.

Those of us who don't mind taking extra dirty potatoes or irregularly shaped carrots, and what not, can reasonably expect to be offered a price advantage that reflects the fact that our willingness to accept nutritious but less than 'perfect' food increases the overall efficiency of the food production and distribution system. Economic incentives *should* accrue to those who promote efficiency, and in a free market, they do. But, the current system is not a free market.

Perishable produce offers a particular challenge to marketers, especially in the current 'self-select' paradigm where consumers can look askance at and pass over any item with the slightest blemish. The items for sale are in a constant state of flux--in transition from fresh to decayed. The relative attractiveness of items can change daily.

Buyers will go for the large items in a produce market selling at a price per item, (rather than per net weight); some smaller items will be passed over, so that they become noticably older, drier than others, or even because they are misshapen. We allow the grocery stores, which have a large part of the responsibility to manage the produce supply, (argueably the most precious natural resource on the planet, at least from our human perspective), to throw away many, many pounds of food every day.

If the produce managers would make an effort to take out grade 'B' produce and sell it at a reduced price to interested consumers, then much of what is now thrown away could go to feed the more needy among us. It is not necessary that we all pay the same high grade 'A' price if we are not all equally concerned that our potatoes be regularly shaped and our tomatoes be completely free of blemishes.

When a store advertises that they sell "only grade 'A' produce", then we can be certain that a lot of grade 'B' and grade 'C' food is being thrown away. There is more profit for the store, evidently, in following this policy (as the system is organized now). The sad truth is that some people have been known to buy grade 'B' produce, then they take it home and eat it, (or not, as the case may be), then go to court claiming that the store sold them spoiled food that made them sick. Others take the food back later claiming that they bought it at regular price and asking for a refund because it is bad. We ought to be able to address these substantial concerns while also promoting a vital, efficient market.

I would be happy to pay a dollar for an ID card that identifies me as a member of the "Grade 'B' Buyers Club"; a group of people who have promised not to sue the store for bad product (we are each responsibile for what we put into our mouths), and promised not to seek refunds on fresh produce items.

I have been banned from stores for taking what were obviously grade 'B' items from the grade 'A' produce rack, asking for the opportunity to purchase the items at a reduced price, then, after being told that the items (which I had taken from the "For Sale" pile) could not be sold at all, and would be thrown away, I (on one occasion) defiantly ate a bruised pear, to show that it was still good inside, and (on another occasion) I took a small box that the store manager insisted must be thrown away. She indicated that if I took the box I was holding, with a few blemished and bruised items in it, that I would not be prosecuted, but that I would be banned from the store.

I wonder how many people have been banned from local grocery stores for taking items that were deemed to have no economic value. If they wish to hire the extra security to protect their policy of throwing away grade 'B' produce, and enforce the ban that they set, that is their perrogative, but if they intend to rely on the police to enforce the ban, then they may be putting an extra, unnecessary, unjustified burden on the publically supported police service. Any police officer (an expensive and valuable community resource) that is called to a grocery store to protect the trash, or to remove a 'tresspasser' is unavailable to the community for other, more pressing concerns, such as protecting against violent crime. The community may frown on this apparent mismanagement of valuable public resources.

Not that I want to promote a climate of lawlessness, but this practice of profligate squandering of resources is a shame.

My letter to HEB Food Stores:

The human population is still increasing. Human beings cut forests and invade wildlife habitat to grow food. Any time that we waste food, we have to destroy more wilderness to make up the loss. Why not sell bruised or blemished produce, grade 'B' items, at reduced price, rather than throw them away? Wasting resources means a harsher life for the next generation.

John Champagne

First published at Geocities


Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule-and-public-property-rights.html

Why I fast - Message to a local TV newsroom

I have what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal. I think the ideas that came to me in a eureka moment would be coming to many others if there were some discussion of the topics of economic externalities (also called 'market failure') and some mention of the idea that natural wealth should be shared equitably, more or less equally. We should hear discussion of these topics in the context of news reports about the problems created by externalities, and within reports about the problems caused by the injustice of unequal sharing of natural wealth.

Externalities are relevant to any story about pollution, resource depletion, traffic congestion (a kind of resource scarcity), etc.

Sharing of natural wealth is an idea that could contribute to any discussion of or report about poverty, unemployment or disparity of wealth.

Some professors have said or endorsed the view that this proposal ... Biological Model for Politics and Economics ... would require changes in human nature and they decided that the paper they received should not be published. They have, however, repeatedly declined to say WHAT changes in human nature would be required. Nor have they said specifically what they read that caused them to believe this.

Kevin Hickey
Demetri Kantarelis

I want someone to show me a flaw in this proposal that would prevent it from working, if there is one.

OR someone show a better proposal for achieving these goals. This changed paradigm would provide the basis for a sustainable society, and it would bring an end to extreme poverty.

I am announcing a fast (68 hrs. on now), as a protest of the neglect of these topics. Also, I protest the discourtesy of these professors (Hickey and Kantarelis, at Assumption College, Massachusetts).

If ANY reporter or editor can say why continued neglect of these topics is defensible, I will end my fast.

(If interested, respond to this critique: Systemic flaws are not reported: What news media and universities are not telling us )

If the professors want to answer the questions, I will end my fast.

If ANY person can show a fatal flaw in the proposal, I will end my fast.

If ANY person points me to a better proposal for how to achieve these goals, I will end my fast.

If MANY people tell me that these goals are not important, I will end my fast.

Otherwise, I will die soon, in a most emphatic act of protest of the neglect of these topics, as explained at the link above.

My hope is that, by alerting you to this blind spot in your (and others') reporting, a change in practice will result.

Thank you.

Don't get distracted

Based on a comment I put in response to a piece on the remarkable accuracy of 1980's climate projections:

Dear People, Let's agree that we will disagree. And let's resolve that we will not let that disagreement forestall the proper functioning of our political system.

Let's agree that it is a function of government to control / limit / manage rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting of various chemicals into the air or water. (Now we inject deadly poisons into the ground, in tens of thousands of 'injection wells', as a means of 'disposal'. I hope we can agree that this practice should be limited, too. Or eliminated.) Certain practices (those that impact the public or community) should not be carried to an extent that most people would say is too much. We should limit pollution and resource extraction to levels that most people feel is acceptable. Otherwise, the right of the people to define limits to levels of pollution, etc., becomes a mere assertion, an idea, not manifest in reality.

Only if we limit impacts to what people consider acceptable can we say that the right of the people to decide is being respected in practice.

We ought not allow a disagreement about the effects of human action to distract us from collectively defining overall limits to those actions.

Promote sustainability and justice through equal sharing of natural wealth:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com

Wed Jul 18 2012 10:20:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)


Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too

How far to go in the quest for knowledge?

Response to a comment after NPR reported that the Higgs boson search team is planning a big announcement.

Gareth Andrews: “...maybe we're not supposed/allowed to get there.“

If anyone can say why creation of very dense particles, if taken to the extreme, will not mean creation of miniature black holes, I would appreciate it.

If a miniature black hole were created, we may not know it (except, perhaps, as an otherwise unexplained loss of energy in the debris of a large hadron collision). It would not have the immediate effect of pulling everything on Earth into it, since the gravitational force would only be significant at an extremely small distance from the particle.

There have been gamma ray bursts observed with modern instruments that are of unknown origin. If some advanced civilization has already developed these particle accelerators and used them to produce black holes, then these mini black holes will likely have settled toward the center of whatever planet that unfortunate civilization inhabits. Over time, there will be interactions with other matter, and this will cause the black hole to become bigger. The effect of its gravitational field will increase, so that it will start pulling other material into it at an increasing rate. Then the whole planet is swallowed up by this manufactured black hole. The planet would be almost completely converted to gamma ray energy as it implodes.

http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com


JoeyN wrote: If you put enough energy in a small enough region, you can create a black hole. However, if the LHC creates a black hole by colliding two protons together, that black hole will be so tiny that it will have a vanishingly small chance of swallowing even a single electron during the entire lifetime of the universe. Who's to say what other hypothetical civilizations are doing, but it's not a concern on Earth, and I don't think it's probably a viable explanation for GRBs...


@Joey N.: I read that there are some GRBs that are EITHER a pair of colliding stars VERY far away, OR an asteroid hitting a neutron star more nearby.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336531/title/Christmas_gamma-ray_burst_still_puzzles

In other words, there are GRBs of unknown energy and we cannot know their total energy unless we know their distance. In the case of these ambiguous signatures, the distance is not known. We cannot distinguish the signature of one event from the signature of another if we do not have a good estimate of the distance.

I suppose that the star-star collision at great distance and the asteroid-star collision at a relatively short distance and the imploding planet at a middle range could all have similar signatures.

Do you disagree?

A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com

Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html

Mon Jul 02 2012 12:40:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)

Oil drilling puts climate and wildlife at risk

In response to an NPR report: Ahead of Alaska Drilling, Shell Practices Cleaning Up:

Oil spills pose a risk to whales, walruses, birds and other wildlife. This wildlife at risk is identified as food source for native villagers, with the implication being that this is why putting it at risk is relevant.

To suggest that the risk to wildlife is only important to the extent that that wildlife is food for humans shows a very narrow view, I think. This reflects an unfortunate (and strong) bias against non-human life. Something understandable, perhaps, from an evolutionary standpoint, but something that we might have hoped to overcome through compassion and intellect.

All the crustaceans, fish and other life that these whales and walruses, etc., eat are at risk of an oil spill, too. It matters whether our actions put millions or billions of other creatures at risk of serious harm or death. It matters, whether or not any villagers had plans to eat those animals.

What if natural resources were shared equally?

A Biological Model for Politics and Economics

In response to a story from "Meat Week" on NPR: "This Chef Loves Her 'Pig', from Nose to Tail":

James Kling wrote: "We need to become MORE connected to how our food is sourced, not LESS."

When we are aware, we can respond.

As economic beings who weigh costs and benefits of various options, we by and large consider the price of goods and services when making choices.

We SHOULD be able to see environmental impacts when we look at prices. We should see them clearly. We can know that prices reflect an appropriate measure of environmental costs when fees paid by those who take natural resources or degrade their quality or put pollution into the air, water or ground are set high enough so that these practices are not done to excess. When most people say that there is not too much pollution of whatever kind, then we know the pollution fees are high enough. When most people say we are not depleting aquifers or helium reserves or whatever other natural resource too rapidly, then we will know that resource extraction fees are high enough.

When the price of the meat or whatever that we buy includes these fees paid for environmental impacts, we become more connected to the consequences of our choices in a way that accurately informs our choice.

A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html

I would hope that ALL producers who want to be involved in a sustainable industry will join a call for a shift of policy toward fees on environmental impacts, as a way to motivate and reward the shift toward sustainability. Those who believe that they produce with a bit or a lot less environmental impact than their competitors should be clamoring for such a change.

Beyond concern about harm to the environment, we may wish to reduce actual harm inflicted on animals raised for food. If we love pigs, we might want to impose a monetary penalty on those who confine them in ways that clearly frustrate their natural urges and proclivities. Such a penalty would favor those in the industry who produce in ways that most people agree are humane. (I would hope that a chef who loves pigs for the intelligent and sensitive creatures that they are would support such a policy.)

All fee proceeds should go to the people. This policy change will cause increases in prices of things essential for life. We need to make the change in a way that *improves* the condition of the vast majority of the world's people, through an equal sharing of the fee proceeds, which would represent the value of natural wealth that is the birthright of all.

Fri Jun 29 2012 15:01:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)

Diet Choice is a Moral Choice

Access to markets in Yemen - Sharing of natural wealth in the world

A comment on a Morning Edition story about the difficulty of finding food in Yemen

also posted to the NPR ombudsman's Open Forum:

Economists know that natural resources are valuable.

Most people, with a moment's reflection, recognize that natural resources belong to all people equally.

The NPR ombudsman, if he is reading his 'Open Forum' page, knows that persistence of economic externalities means that the least well off are less well off than they would be if we were charging fees to industries that cause environmental degradation, and sharing the fee proceeds equally with all people.

Why is there no mention of the fact that natural resource wealth is shared extremely unevenly in the world we live in when reporting a story about poverty and lack of access to markets?

What if natural resources were really owned equally by all?...

http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com

We would end extreme poverty throughout the world. That's what.

And overall rates of using up resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water would be kept within limits that most people find acceptable.

Why is there never a public policy survey that asks the question whether we are using up resources too rapidly, or whether current emissions are within acceptable limits?

Why are these facts not noted in reporting about poverty and environmental challenges / sustainability?

Tue Jun 26 2012 08:45:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)

Equal sharing of natural wealth would promote justice and sustainability