[all2]

> Is feeding the world a real problem?

Yes, but it is not a production capacity problem. The constraints on food are mostly in the logistics chain, often having to do with corruption or distribution targets (food goes where the money is), or regulation (did you know that cherry growers in the Upper Midwest are required --_by Federal law_-- to destroy unsold crops?).

A huge amount of food goes to waste simply because of regulation or subsidies, at least within the United States.

[Alupis]

Tart cherries are supply-controlled because they are processed into other goods, like pie filling, and can be stored for long duration (multiple seasons). The supply-control regulation is designed to prevent a surplus crop from depressing the market to the point where it's no longer viable to grow tart cherries - reducing future supply, ie. the regulation is designed to provide a consistent, stable supply.

Surplus tart cherry crops are rarely destroyed. In the event of a surplus, they are often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

[cogman10]

Yup. The regulations on food in the US is exactly to make sure the shelves stay stocked no matter what. Without such regulations, you'd experience random items being unavailable and price shocks.

One thing people often don't figure or realize is food takes time to grow. It requires long term thinking to make sure supplies are sufficient. Left to their own devices, farmers will often chase after last season's cash crop. That is bad. It's far better for farmers to stick to more predictable growing and for more dedicated incentives to be issued.

[fredthompson]

[flagged]

[cogman10]

I grew up on a farm and lived around farmers. This is my lived experience.

I saw first hand farmers tear up a barley fields to plant wheat when the price got high enough.

Farming is a game of speculation. Planting last year's cash crop can be a successful strategy just like buying APPL today will likely yield good returns. Yet, it's a very hard market to predict with a lot of luck involved. Maybe only a few chase the cash crop and you win big. Maybe everyone does and you lose. Maybe there's a natural or political disaster that pumps up your crop.

There was nothing insulting, condensing, or dismissive about my comment. Highly speculative markets, like food, have booms and busts that can swing wildly. That's bad for something like food. The free market does not work with crops.

[all2]

> The free market does not work with crops.

I'd argue that this should be refined to something like "farmers that speculate heavily struggle in an under-regulated free market".

Financial stability in highly volatile markets depends on appropriate planning, saving, and distribution. I say this from the investment perspective, but I would venture to guess that it also applies to hard goods like food-stuffs.

[cogman10]

I disagree with that refinement.

The nature of farming is speculation. It's inescapable. In a completely free market there's no way to guarantee success. Even with the best planning and saving you can't know what the rest of the market is doing and because of the long tail, you are locked in to harvesting and selling your crop no matter what.

You can speculate and be the farmer that always plants and grows wheat. You'll see booms and busts based on that. You can also switch up what you are growing based on your best guess about demand. Both strategies can be successful.

Funnily, one way to make farming less risky is a futures contract. And, if you know anything about futures commodity trading you know they are some of the most risky forms of trading.

[array_key_first]

It's true though, these regulations exists because speculation and profit-chasing in agriculture is what lead to the dust bowl and worsened the great depression. We really, really don't want a repeat of that.

[boothby]

The amazing thing about people failing to learn from history is that everybody thinks they're too smart to (a) learn history or (b) follow rules enacted to prevent the disasters of yesteryear.

[renewiltord]

[flagged]

[bloppe]

I think your fun cherry fact is pretty inaccurate. If you're referring to USDA Marketing Order #930, it's basically about setting sales limits in bumper crop years to avoid a situation where so many cherries hit the market that farmers lose money simply by harvesting them. They're free to donate the cherries etc. but again, they would be essentially wasting their own money by putting in the time and effort to harvest them beyond the amount they're allowed to sell.

[ls612]

This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.

[unglaublich]

But in a pure market that would mean that during overproduction times, prices should be low. Which they artificially aren't through industry price fixing.

[bee_rider]

I’m not sure what a pure market is.

The result that free markets are Prato optimal, though, requires conditions like low barriers to entry, perfect information, and low cost transactions… none of which seem very well met in the case of agriculture.

[adgjlsfhk1]

It turns out that low barriers to entry, perfect information and low cost transactions are almost never present.

[voxl]

There is no reason to obliterate food, you should give it away to those in need.

[Alupis]

People do not eat tart cherries directly. They are processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice concentrate, etc.

Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional processing.

[Dylan16807]

That's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).

[Alupis]

If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about...

> It's still food, full of flavor and calories

Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.

[Dylan16807]

Coming back later, I realized earlier I looked up the calories but I didn't compare them to anything else. So while tart cherries "only" have 50 calories per 100g, sweet cherries are up around 60, not very different. An apple also has about 50-60 per 100g. So does an orange.

Fruit isn't super dense in calories to begin with because it has so much water, but it's still a meaningful amount, and tart cherries are pretty standard among fruit.

[Dylan16807]

> If you researched this regulation even a little

Yeah yeah yeah I saw that in your other comment.

That's a completely different argument.

The argument you made in this comment is still a bad one.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to move the goalposts...

[nh23423fefe]

Ok drive to Michigan and haul away 3 tons of cherries.

[munk-a]

Are Michigan tart cherry farmers allowed to sell direct to customers without additional licensing requirements and food inspections?

[voxl]

Insightful retort, did you forget the slight issue of it being illegal?