Is it wrong to "waste" food?

[softwareNerd]

But it is true I think that we should not just be throwing food, or anything, away.

Why not! People don't buy something they consider valuable and then throw it away willy-nilly. They might throw out old furniture because it is looking old, or because they're bored with it. If they can afford to do so, and are doing so rationally, it is -- to that tiny extent -- a sign of their morality, not their immorality. Similarly, there are many rational reasons to throw out food.

In the context of not having much money, it is sensible for someone to go around and pick up (say) furniture that others have discarded. On the other hand, in the context of having enough money, it is completely rational to buy (say) some furniture, use it for some years, and then want a change. One might have a garage sale to try to get something for it, or one might donate it, or one might throw it away. Hat's off to those who can afford to do things like that; the more people can afford to do that, the better. It is a sign of success and (ceteris paribus) of moral virtue.

[Dan Bidewell]

OK - this is not a trap (as in I am not asking this question so I can see people's replies, and then come up with another response I have already though of), but I would like to know if it would be bettter (economically) not to waste.

Let us take the example of the farmer and his potatoes (if I am going off topic please ignore me). I buy his potatoes and then do not use them but throw them away. Had I not bought them, and he had been left with a surplus he could not sell, would this have driven the price of potatoes up or down? Would this be good for him or for the consumer? Would he then, seeing his potatoes not selling, been encouraged to grow something that he will be able to sell (beetroot) for a better price?

And would this really matter anyway or is it just the ebb and flow of any economy.

And I apologise for asking this question with such an overly simple analogy - I simply do not know all the correct economic terms to ask the question otherwise.

[Dan Bidewell]

I've been cheating! I have just conferred with someone at work who knows all about this sort of ting and lots more...

Someone buying something they do not need, and then throwing them away, will drive the price of that product up, as they increase this demand. This is good for the producer, but not good for anyone else (including the person buying the product). It creates a falsely inflated economy.

The affect of people taking the products unused by the consumer is this: if they are a tramp who wouldn't have bought the product anyway, then there is no affect, if however instead of buying them they are taking the unused products of someone else then they will help cancel out the effect of the false inflation.

If however, in the case of potatoes which can be planted again and again to meet demand, then there will be an affect of driving price down.

So I still don't know the answer to my question. On the whole, it seems to me that waste drives prices up.

[Felix]

Let us take the example of the farmer and his potatoes (if I am going off topic please ignore me). I buy his potatoes and then do not use them but throw them away. Had I not bought them, and he had been left with a surplus he could not sell, would this have driven the price of potatoes up or down? Would this be good for him or for the consumer? Would he then, seeing his potatoes not selling, been encouraged to grow something that he will be able to sell (beetroot) for a better price?

And would this really matter anyway or is it just the ebb and flow of any economy.

And I apologise for asking this question with such an overly simple analogy - I simply do not know all the correct economic terms to ask the question otherwise.

If people didn't buy these very potatoes (and no potatoes at all, for clairity), then the farmer would have to lower his prices. If this was true among all farmers, then potatoe prices would go down pretty damn quick or the potatoes would rot and the farmer would lose even more money. Then he would, of course, grow other food on his land in the hope of profits. The potatoe price would then readjust to normal, because it was only so low due to short term lack of demand (or oversupply, depending on how you look at it). The price is usually determined by the cost of production given that potatoes are a good where you don't care who made them (and only look at the price) and there is tough competition among producers.

If this is really a change in consumer behavior, then less potatoes will be grown and people will spend their money on other things.

I have a problem understanding your question, though. What do you mean by 'better off economically'. The market adapts to demand so that you are always as well-off as you can be -economically. If that is what you mean. If you ask for more potatoes than you need, then more potatoes than you need will be produced. This is, of course, a waste of resources. And it is paid for by you who buys the potatoes and throws them away. This means that it is paid for by the very person causing the trouble. I still don't see the problem you seem to see here. Please explain it a bit further.

Sidenote: I find it quite funny that almost every forum thread here ends in a discussion of basics principles of ethics, economics, epistemology, ... This thread was once about freegans. This is nothing specific to this thread, but it is characteristic of this forum

[Dan Bidewell]

What do you mean by 'better off economically'. The market adapts to demand so that you are always as well-off as you can be -economically. If that is what you mean. I still don't see the problem you seem to see here. Please explain it a bit further.

I just meant better of economically - as in would it be in your economic interests. I asked the question for a reply and explanation, not rhetorically to prove a point.

Your reply makes sense to me. I suppose my only objection to throwing things away and wasting them is based on guilt, which is my own irrational hang-up, not one I can really logically defend very well. So I suppose it isn't a very good basis then!

[softwareNerd]

Dan,

First, to get the straw-man out of the way: in almost all normal situations, it would be irrational if someone makes a habit of buying stuff only to throw it away.

With that said, there are situations where one might rationally decide to throw something away, or perhaps to throw away a part of what one has bought. It might be a purchase that was made in error, or something that you thought you needed, but did not need in retrospect. It might even mean buying a larger pack size than one can use, because it is cheaper to do so.

If one defines "wastage" to be the discarding of something that could be useful to someone else, rather than the irrational discarding of...etc., then there is a certain extent to which wastage is rational. How much is rational depends on the person's situation. A poor person might plan small purchases much more scrupulously than a richer person, and might leave less margin of error -- buying less rather than more. A richer person might, quite rationally, not spend "too much" time on smaller purchase decisions, and might prefer to err on buying more of something rather than less. Spending less time and having enough when more than average is needed are values to the person. These have to be weighed against other values that the same money can buy.

In a rich economy, people have the luxury of such "rational wastage". One might speculate that as people in an economy get richer, such "rational wastage" would increase as a percentage to the total economic value produced (pure speculation here). As long as the economy is free and the decisions are rational, the economy such "wastage" is of value and is "efficient".

[Dan Bidewell]

Dan,

First, to get the straw-man out of the way:

I honestly have no idea what the straw-man is! What does this saying mean?

[DavidOdden]

I honestly have no idea what the straw-man is! What does this saying mean?

It refers to a weak argument that one might set up and then demolish, where the weak argument is somewhat analogous to an actual argument advanced to make a point. So by arguing against a distorted version of X, you might seem to have argued against X. It's related to the reductio ad absurdum (but not the same as it).

[softwareNerd]

I have just conferred with someone at work who knows all about this sort of thing and lots more.

Given the rest of what was in that post, I suggest you look to someone else if you wish to learn Economics.

[Felix]

If you waste food, that is, if you buy more than you actually need (and throw the rest away), then you increase the demand for food, yes. But if that drives up the prices? I doubt it. As I said, markets adapt to demand and it could very well be that food becomes cheaper because more of the certain food you waste is produced due to increased demand. The fixed costs are then distributed among more product which might even result in lower prices. Just saying: the demand is high, therefore the price is high is too simple. This only works in the short term when there is a sudden demand increase or a sudden destruction of supply.

The additional costs of production (for wasted food) are then more than covered by the guy who wastes the food.

[BurgessLau]

I honestly have no idea what the straw-man is! What does this saying mean?

Dan, are you an Objectivist? (Your Viewing Profile doesn't say so, and unfortunately it hints that you are not.) If you are an Objectivist, and if you are serious about studying Objectivism, I would recommend buying and reading an introductory text on logic. The Ayn Rand Bookstore catalogue lists several possibilities.

For you, as a beginner, Lionel Ruby's Logic: An Introduction might be a useful handbook. (Joseph's Introduction to Logic is excellent but quite advanced.) Among other items, Ruby's book offers a clear description of the major fallacies -- such as the fallacy of the straw man.

Why should a student of Objectivism study logic? Because the essential concept of Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand created, is objectivity. That concept refers to a certain kind of relationship between ideas in the mind and facts of reality -- a relationship in which the ideas are drawn logically from the facts. Without logic, there is no objectivity. Without objectivity, there is no Objectivism -- or any other valid idea, for that matter.

Edited November 27, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Dan, I think I understand why wasting food, or any produced item, bothers you. It bothers me, too, but wastage in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong. I think the root cause of the waste bothers you, but you have failed to identify what it is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

First, the issue of wasting food. Let's consider the type of person who goes to the Chinese buffet, takes seven dumplings, eats half of one and decides he'll throw the rest away and go back for several more plates in the same manner. I don't like this type of behavior because it indicates one of two things: either the person isn't hungry in the first place or he doesn't know what he even likes. This type of action is typical of a child. Both indicate a lack of thought or consideration that should guide any activity. It is hard to have any type of respect for such a non-thinking person. The same would apply to someone who buys a bunch of clothing and then gets home and decides he/she will throw it in the garbage can. SoftwareNerd, this is different than someone making good use of an item and then deciding to throw it away if it is not useful or give it away or sell it if it is; the type of situation you indicated above.

As for grocery stores and farmers 'wasting' food, we have to define waste. Farmers often plow a crop back into the ground to fertilize the soil. This is not waste at all. The $$ lost in sale of the crop is worth what the farmer gains in soil fertility. Likewise, farmers sometimes milk their cows and throw away all the milk because the cost of bringing it to market outweighs the revenue, depending on market conditions and crazy government regulations trying to control food prices. This is not irrational or wrong. As for grocery stores throwing away rotten vegetables and such, this is unavoidable, and although the volumes they discard are huge, they are minor in comparison to what they sell. I can't see that any company that wastes excessively will be in business for long. It's difficult to make a large profit on food; it's not an easy industry to be in. Something like 50% of restaurants go under in their first year of business.

At a household level, I waste quite a bit of food. I try to reduce my waste mostly to save myself money, since I'm a poor student. I would prefer that my biodegradable waste be composted so that it can be further used by myself or others, rather than sit for eons in a landfill, but in my current housing situation I don't have the space to make my own compost pile. I used to use compost for fertilizer for a huge garden. I would wish to do this, if I could, to make FULL use of an item and to save myself money.

Defining waste as "the indiscriminate purchase and discarding of items," I would have to disagree that an increased level of waste indicates increased moral virtue. (But I think softwareNerd has defined waste differently that I do in his examples above.) The only thing that indiscriminate waste indicates is a lack of understanding of the value of money. As Howard Hughes says to Katharine Hepburn's mother in the movie The Aviator: "You don't think much of money because you've always had it."

Dan, I also don't understand why you would care whether prices go up, down, or sideways due to "wastage." In the long run, a free market takes care of itself.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Inspector]

In the long run, a free market takes care of itself.

I have occasionally seen this emotional reaction to "waste," that is a reaction above and beyond that of disliking simple stupidity.

From what I have seen, (and this may not apply in every case) it is based on a lack of understanding of how a free market works.

What needs to be understood is that, exactly as Liro said, a free market takes care of itself. If you see someone wasting something, the person that suffers from that waste is HIMSELF. If a store is wasting food, THEY LOSE MONEY. They have a motivation to stop doing that and they don't need anyone to tell them that fact.

Similarly, if a family wastes food, they are wasting their own money. They have their own incentive to stop and they don't busybodies telling them to do so.

What about rich people, who can afford to waste things and won't necessarily notice a few dollars lost? Simple: they are rich because they are PRODUCING enough to afford that loss. (if not, they'll go bankrupt and justice is served) In the case of most rich people I've seen, they are creating enough wealth that to get mad at them for a little waste is just silly.

But then this is where I usually see the old marxist saws come out, to the effect of "they're not producing anything" and all that rot.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Inspector

[Dan Bidewell]

I have occasionally seen this emotional reaction to "waste," that is a reaction above and beyond that of disliking simple stupidity.

From what I have seen, (and this may not apply in every case) it is based on a lack of understanding of how a free market works.

I have said that I can see that my dislike of waste is perhaps not backed up by any rationally explainable arguement, in which case then it isn't really a very good basis for disliking something. I also did say that I didn't really understand the economics behind it, but I had a good bash at working it through by myself, of course I didn't really do too well!

I can now see, that really, as Liriodendron Tulipifera says in response to my question, the free market takes care of itself - so it is rather like worrying about whether the sea will flood if I wee in it.

Now I have another question - how about government interference to encourage "waste"?. For example, the EU buys huge amounts of farmers' produce every year, and then just does nothing with it (the so-called EU Butter and Wheat and Grain Mountains). I think this is done to keep prices high. Is this in any way justifiable?. It seems to me that it can't be because doesn't it interfere with the free market?

[BurgessLau]

Yes, governments buying "surplus" agricultural produce to prop up commodity prices are politically attacking a free market. More fundamentally, such moves are immoral because they commit aggression -- in two forms: stealing the money (through taxation) used to buy the surplus and then (according to what I have read) prohibiting open competition among farmers, for example by imposing tariffs or quotas on produce from outside the country.

Edited November 29, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Dan Bidewell]

Is it morally justifiable for a larger food supplier, let us say a big supermarket, to buy produce up and waste it in the same way to prop up commodity prices? Or would it simply not be worth their while as it would not be in their interests?

[Felix]

Is it morally justifiable for a larger food supplier, let us say a big supermarket, to buy produce up and waste it in the same way to prop up commodity prices? Or would it simply not be worth their while as it would not be in their interests?

Well, it's not very reasonable to do so. You buy stuff and thereby crank up the prices of the stuff you buy. Then you throw it away. Your competitors who don't throw anything away will then beat you in the marketplace. It's just not a good idea. You just waste money. And this is always punished in the marketplace.

[Dan Bidewell]

Well, it's not very reasonable to do so.

So "wasting food" will only affect the individual (be he the man who bys too much food and then throws it away, or the owner of the supermarket chain), so if he wants to waste something, which will affect him detrimentally, I suppose he should be free to do so. I suppose that as (I think it was Felix) someone said, if you do want to buy food for the pleasure of watching it rot, then you should be able to do so.

How about a finite resource? Or even, is it possible to waste a finite resource (gold doesn't rot does it!)?.

[Inspector]

I can now see, that really, as Liriodendron Tulipifera says in response to my question, the free market takes care of itself - so it is rather like worrying about whether the sea will flood if I wee in it.

LOL, well said! I'm glad you got it so well and so quickly.

Now I have another question - how about government interference to encourage "waste"?.

My off-the-cuff response is that government interference of the kind that causes waste is in fact the single largest source of waste in history. The only kind large enough to cause widespread harm, and it is precisely because the government answers to no market that it can become so large. (I'd say the "penny in the fusebox" analogy applies here)

How about a finite resource? Or even, is it possible to waste a finite resource (gold doesn't rot does it!)?.

Resources that are rare and finite are more expensive, thus increasing the amount of ruin that a man will cause himself by wasting them. Since he did have to produce something to be able to buy up those resources, he causes no net harm to anyone. It's a beautiful thing the way the market works.

[Dan Bidewell]

Resources that are rare and finite are more expensive, thus increasing the amount of ruin that a man will cause himself by wasting them. Since he did have to produce something to be able to buy up those resources, he causes no net harm to anyone. It's a beautiful thing the way the market works.

If it truly is a finite resource (that is to say, there is hardly none left) and someone wastes what they have left of it, just for the fun of it, could this be morally justified?. I understand that it is theirs to do with what they will, but surely they are just making it harder for other people to get any? Or is this of no concern, objectively?

[softwareNerd]

If ... someone wastes what they have left of it, just for the fun of it, could this be morally justified?

The essential question is whether a rational person can ever do this for fun, and in what contexts. If it is being done for irrational reasons, it is not moral.

[Dan Bidewell]

The essential question is whether a rational person can ever do this for fun, and in what contexts. If it is being done for irrational reasons, it is not moral.

Perhaps hunting? (I am not anti-hunting by the way)

[RationalBiker]

If it truly is a finite resource (that is to say, there is hardly none left) and someone wastes what they have left of it, just for the fun of it, could this be morally justified?. I understand that it is theirs to do with what they will, but surely they are just making it harder for other people to get any? Or is this of no concern, objectively?

I'm not trying to be insulting when I say, you appear to be trying to evaluate this in altruist terms.

If you are interested in the Objectivist evaluation of the morality of this action, the way you need to consider the question is in what way will this waste affect owner of the wasted property, not other people. Whether or not it makes it harder on other people is irrelevant except in whatever capacity it impacts the waster/owner of the resource. In other words, think selfish. What goals and / or values is the owner achieving by wasting the property, and do they actually serve the owner's long term self-interests.

Selfishness is a virtue.

[Dan Bidewell]

I'm not trying to be insulting when I say, you appear to be trying to evaluate this in altruist terms.

I am just trying to see how I would be able to agree with another person's right to waste a valuable resource. If I can understand that, then I think I will be able to reconcile the whole picture.

So, I am supposing that there are hypotheticals... Let's say I am a tour guide on some island, and another of the people on the island kills the last of the turtles that all the tourists come to visit. There are no more of that turtle left anywhere. Neither of us own that turtle, so it is not his, nor is it mine. However, it does make my life more difficult. I could change jobs, but I do not want to. I am thinking selfishly.

[RationalBiker]

So, I am supposing that there are hypotheticals... Let's say I am a tour guide on some island,

What rational self interest did turtleicide and /or turtle extinction serve the person who killed it? Note that to know this answer, you may have to know a significant amount of context of the "killers" life, and the full context of the actual killing of the turtle.

Did he violate anyone's rights by killing the turtle? In "making your life more difficult", did he violate your rights? Did he violate some rule of the property he was on? (assuming it was private property) Making someone else's life difficult is no criteria for evaluating the morality of an action. For example, if I open a business which makes life difficult for my competitors because I offer lower prices, I have done nothing immoral. I have not inherent obligation to consider how my actions make another person's life harder or easier. I only need to be concerned with how my actions impact me, and that I cannot violate the rights of other people.

You are not thinking selfishly in an Objectivist sense. Again you are attempting to evaluate the morality the "killer's" actions based on it's impact on another person (you), not him. What you must evaluate is what impact it had on him. The relevance of his impact on you only matters in terms of how that impacts him if your purpose is to understand the morality of his actions.

For instance, let me add a some context to your hypothetical. Suppose you know this person (the turtle killer). Suppose you owe this person a significant amount of money, and he knows that your job is crucial to your ability to repay him the money you know him. Suppose also, that he knows the death of this turtle would significantly impact your job, possibly even resulting in your loss of employment. He may evaluate "Does the killing of this turtle represent a greater value to me than the continued expectation of loan payments from you?" If the loan payment represents a greater value to him than killing the turtle, but he kills the turtle anyway, and then you lose your ability to continue making payments to him, he has acted immoral. He has acted against his self interests.

Now granted, there are a host of issues with this hypothetical, some of which I addressed in questions above, but that is the basic gist of looking at the morality of his actions from an Objecivist viewpoint. If you want anyone here to give you an evaluation based on some other philosophy, I won't bet on your chances of success.