Extremely not-fun fact: collectively, humanity currently produces more than enough food for every person. But a huge part of it is either wasted or inaccessible by people that need them, which usually results in them not going to anyone and being wasted, which is why we still have food scarcity.

    • blackbirdbiryani@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      That depends. If discarding food costs $X and distributing it to another market costs $2X guess which option is economically favourable?

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The only reason that would occur would be inefficiency in distribution of product.

          • foggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is literally the first comment in this thread, gtfo. Not going in circles with you.

            • TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then what would you suggest? If getting rid of food costs say $5 and sending to a different area costs say $10 then between both selections which one is better for the economy?

              • foggy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I stated a fact, I didn’t suggest anything. wtf are you still talking for?

                If you’re paying to get rid of something you paid for, you fucked up.