Wastage vs Poverty

It comes out quite often in freegan discussions and when we are young.
We tend to hear these statements.
Finish your food. There are hungry children in Africa.
Something like that right?
And there are some freegans who cannot stand food wastage. And I think that's fine. We shouldn't be wasting food.

But I was thinking. Does not wasting food help the poor? Usually when we talk about wasting food, we talk about. Don't order so much. If we can't finish the food, we don't order it. If we don't order so much, we don't need to throw it away when we can't finish it.
If we don't see excess food being disposed off, we don't feel that there is waste.
IF we see excess food being disposed off, then most of us rational people would think. Might as well give it to the poor instead of throwing it away.

So the idea is... If we don't order so much, in terms of the food at the hawker center, or supermarkets don't order so much vegetables, we don't need to throw away. And there would be less waste. IF we want to throw away, then we should give it to someone who can use it better. Like the poor.

So I wondered. Is there any relationship between the two? Wastage vs being poor?
My belief is that there is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone AND to be wasted. Meaning if resources can be distributed well, everyone could get food and there would still be wastage. And it doesn't matter.

Ok let's think about it.
If I am a farmer, I have 100 acres of land. I will just plant the whole area. I won't know the harvest, so I just plant the whole area and at the end, I harvest it. Then I sell it. If there's more, I sell for a cheaper price, if there's less I might sell for more expensive. If I can't sell it, I'm going to waste it anyway.
There's a lot of produce being disposed off at the farm.

Then the supply chain continues. Passes on to the other distributers. If they can sell, they sell, else they dump. Then it reaches retail supermarkets. If they can sell to consumers, they sell, else the dump.

So from how I see it, food is just produced. And for businesses, producing more doesn't cost much more. So they just produce larger amounts to oversupply by a small amount. To them it's a small amount, but to us when we see the wastage, it's considered a lot.
The idea is to make sure that all the buyers can be sold to and slightly over produce.
If there's no more stock, means the business should continue to produce cos it means some customers aren't being serviced, which means a loss of profits.

This idea runs right down the supply chain. So at retail, the supermarket over supplies. So that everyone can buy it on a whim. That's the whole idea of a supermarket. When I go to a supermarket, I expect it to have stock of what I want. That's what most people expect. So they need to oversupply to fulfill this expectation. Else they will lose customers to other supermarkets which provide this service of oversupply.

So what's the problem between this issue of oversupply and wastage, vs poverty?
The problem is, the poor don't fit into this equation. They aren't part of this flow.

If they are employed along the food chain of products and services, they can earn money and can buy stuff. Alternatively, they can be at the tail end and look for food wastage and obtain it for free, like what many of the freegans do.
The problem is, the poor are not in the system. And we can't expect businesses to incur more costs to distribute the wastage to the poor.

Well, I'm not here to solve the problem.
I'm just putting across the point. That less wastage doesn't mean the poor will be fed. If people buy less from the supermarket, they supermarket will order less, then the wholesaler would order less... Etc etc. But the farmer would likely still plant his whole 100 acres. And the wastage would just be unseen at the farm when he can't sell his stuff.

I'm not here to suggest how to solve the problem.
I just want to out across the idea that lower food wastages won't help the poor. If I can't finish that bowl of rice or that half chicken, and I throw it away. The African kid will still be starving. The poor homeless auntie by Chinatown would still not have food.

It's not about giving them free stuff. It's about how to include them in the system. Either providing them with work or even to teach them where to find free stuff. If you throw away some excess food or give them free food. It's not going to help them much. Rather, it's how to get the poor within the system so that they know how to feed themselves.

So I find that... Wasting less stuff doesn't link with people being poor.
Yes, if we are going to throw it away anyway, then it could be put to better use by giving it to the poor.
But if we order less food, the food chain just adjusts itself and the wastage will shift to another level of the supply chain.

So the point is. To help the poor. We need to actively help the poor. By teaching them how to feed themselves.
The comments about reducing food waste at food courts or supermarkets by changing consumption patterns aren't going to reallocate the excess to the poor.

So if u look at that half bowl of rice thinking that u need to finish it cos the poor African kid is starving, but you're full, it's ok to just not eat it. Cos the African kid is going to be starving anyway.

Now don't think I'm condoning wasting food. I'm not. For me, I eat 1.5 meals, cos I eat my food and my wife's food, cos she can't finish it. And I'm gaining weight due to that. I don't like to waste food as well.
I'm just saying. If you over order and are too full to finish the food, don't force yourself to finish it. Don't feel bad about dumping it. You are just part of the supply chain and the supply chain includes wastage. It's just part of the process.


<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls. 
Many thanks for continuing to come to this blog to read my posts.