This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Third World vs First World

edited March 2009 in Politics
Okay, have to do this dig because I happen to be in the world of the third variety: I'm hoping that a decent majority of participants in the forum are from the United States because good lord, you people know how to consume food.

I'm not talking in a personal sense here, I mean in general - the quantities served at restaurants... the denominations of weight and volume sold in supermarkets... Aside from the fact that I'm starting to think I should have posted this in the flame wars section, I have to ask: where the hell does it all come from and why on earth do you need so much? It's not like you have starving masses to feed - social welfare is pretty good over there (based on my recent visit to Chicago).

Before posting though, my recent visit did debunk the "All Americans are overweight stereotype" - which actually serves to raise another point - it follows logic that a large amount of this food must be going to waste. Justifications? Reasons? Responses? I'm literally on the edge of my seat in anticipation of a response. Okay, not literally.

Comments

  • Where does it come from? Duh. It is either produced in the US or imported.
    As to justifications for waste? How would we get the "leftovers" to another nation? Spoilage and distribution issues. Also, when going out to restaurants that serve large portions, I know that most people only eat ahalf and bring the rest home for the next days meal. Food is (relatively) inexpensive in the States. Despite this, we do have a hunger issues. The biggest problem is that the food that is worst for people (processed foods with high caloric/fat content with limited nutrients) is the cheapest food available or the easiest to prepare (frozen meals and the like).
  • American farmers are stupidly efficient. So much so, in fact, the government sometimes pays them to not grow crops.
  • edited March 2009
    American farmers are stupidly awesomely efficient. So much so, in fact, the government sometimes pays them to not grow crops.
    Fixed it.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Where does it come from? Duh. It is either produced in the US or imported.
    As to justifications for waste? How would we get the "leftovers" to another nation?
    It does seem thought that the quantities produced are totally out of proportion to the consuming population - surely there would be advantages to producing less and diverting the money/effort/research etc. into other things? I can't imagine that it's even used for compost or feeding animals - and dumping organic waste = methane, although I'm just grasping at weak arguments here... I'm hoping you get where I'm going with this.

    As for the "leftovers" - the hotel where I was staying won't even transport "leftovers" down the street to a homeless shelter for fear of being sued because they aren't willing to refrigerate trucks to transport the food. Aside from the humour aspect from a third world perspective (getting sued by homeless people - hilarious concept), distribution of leftovers is a universally infrequent event regardless of the distance required to transport the food across - I generate them and I haven't gone down to the "townships" and handed out food.
  • Fixed it.
    stupidly [STOO-pid-lee] (adj.)- very, to an extreme.
    ex. "That level was stupidly hard."
  • American farmers are stupidly efficient. So much so, in fact, the government sometimes pays them to not grow crops.
    I'm still in awe of the fact that they are given an incentive to reduce productivity. I'm sure you're all familiar with the concept of "strike action" - such would be the result of similar incentives here. I'll give them that though - they are stupidly efficient!
  • edited March 2009
    Where does it come from? Duh. It is either produced in the US or imported.
    As to justifications for waste? How would we get the "leftovers" to another nation?
    It does seem thought that the quantities produced are totally out of proportion to the consuming population - surely there would be advantages to producing less and diverting the money/effort/research etc. into other things? I can't imagine that it's even used for compost or feeding animals - and dumping organic waste = methane, although I'm just grasping at weak arguments here... I'm hoping you get where I'm going with this.

    As for the "leftovers" - the hotel where I was staying won't even transport "leftovers" down the street to a homeless shelter for fear of being sued because they aren't willing to refrigerate trucks to transport the food. Aside from the humour aspect from a third world perspective (getting sued by homeless people - hilarious concept), distribution of leftovers is a universally infrequent event regardless of the distance required to transport the food across - I generate them and I haven't gone down to the "townships" and handed out food.
    While I think we should have some standards for giving "leftover" food to the homeless/poor - I think the current standards are ridiculous. My Mom worked at a dairy company in the 1980's. They would often end up with too much of a product that would go pat their "sell by" dates in a few days. They used to give these products to shelters for immediate consumption (milk, cheese, ice cream, yogurt, cream cheese, sour cream, etc.). It was a relatively small amount of product from the corporation's point of view, and a huge amount of food from the shelters' point of view (so win-win). They had to stop when Florida changed their food donation policies. They started giving the product to their staff, but most people that worked there didn't really need it. (We did because we were poor at the time, but most of the people that took it home didn't need it.) It really sucks.

    TheWhaleShark: Do you know the laws, regulations, and standards for donating food?
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • As for the "leftovers" - the hotel where I was staying won't even transport "leftovers" down the street to a homeless shelter for fear of being sued because they aren't willing to refrigerate trucks to transport the food. Aside from the humour aspect from a third world perspective (getting sued by homeless people - hilarious concept), distribution of leftovers is a universally infrequent event regardless of the distance required to transport the food across - I generate them and I haven't gone down to the "townships" and handed out food.
    Actually, there are associations like "City Harvest" and stuff like that that goes around the city to transport left-over food to the homeless.

    City Harvest
  • I've said this, rather recently, before on these forums. Americans are idiots. And they're getting worse with the day.
    American farmers arestupidlyawesomelyefficient. So much so, in fact, the government sometimes pays them to not grow crops.
    Fixed it.
    Awesomely? Having several fucktons of land plus normal, modern equipment doesn't mean they're awesomely efficient. They produce a lot because they have a lot of land. Modern efficiency != awesome. If it were, there wouldn't be people dying of hunger on this planet.

    Sarai, it's all very simple, the US, or better, the first world is just a bunch of power hungry insignificant specks. In the case of the US 40% of the insignificant specks that don't have a position with 'power' (and even some who do), are left with being just hungry. These stuff their faces with crap and more crap whilst ignoring their health.

    I would be delighted if suddenly every unhealthily living fuckhead imploded and their daily consumption of food got spread to the people that actually need it to wake up tomorrow.
  • Sounds like someone needs to wash the sand out of their vagina...
  • Sounds like someone needs to wash the sand out of their vagina...
    Yeah, you're gnashing rather loudly. Go shower.
  • RymRym
    edited March 2009
    Modern efficiency != awesome. If it were, there wouldn't be people dying of hunger on this planet.
    People don't die of hunger due to lack of available food. There is plenty of food for everyone, even in much of the third world. It's just not distributed properly, due largely to warlords, economic oppression, and other factors.

    We can't just send our extra food there. In the past, we've found that doing so makes things worse, driving down prices locally (thus preventing local farmers from even bothering to grow anything to become self-sufficient) or suplying warlords with money.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • TheWhaleShark: Do you know the laws, regulations, and standards for donating food?
    I'm pretty sure it operates on a state-by-state basis. Generally speaking, the food must be in merchantable condition. Other than that, I believe it's up to the charity in question to decide whether or not a particular food is acceptable. Some places may accept perishables, some may not.

    Fun fact: At least in New York State, "Sell By" dates have no legal bearing whatsoever. Stores are not required to take down food that is past its "Sell By" date. They are required to remove food that is obviously unmerchantable (spoiled food, moldy bread, etc), but they're not actually required to remove food that the manufacturer advises has expired.

    By the same token, please note that food isn't necessarily expired after its "Sell By" date, nor is it guaranteed to be good up until that point. It's simply an advisory from the manufacturer.
  • Yes, this is true. Norman Borlag rice and all that. If modern and sustainable methods were employed in, say, Africa, they would have tons of food. The problem is political instability and the poverty that results from it brings hunger with it. It's not all drought and crop famine, you realize. Though that happens, it could be combated with the proper distribution of emergency supplies. It's that because of poor economic conditions people are still doing the subsistence farming that people did hundreds of years ago. In Europe in the middle ages, famine was a real concern. However, today most starvation is caused by the inability to get food to people vs. a lack of overall food.
  • When it comes to the issue of food I have to agree with Rym, it's just poorly distributed.

    May I ask where you come from, which third world country?
  • Awesomely? Having several fucktons of land plus normal, modern equipment doesn't mean they're awesomely efficient. They produce a lot because they have a lot of land. Modern efficiency != awesome. If it were, there wouldn't be people dying of hunger on this planet.

    Sarai, it's all very simple, the US, or better, the first world is just a bunch of power hungry insignificant specks. In the case of the US 40% of the insignificant specks that don't have a position with 'power' (and even some who do), are left with being just hungry. These stuff their faces with crap and more crap whilst ignoring their health.

    I would be delighted if suddenly every unhealthily living fuckhead imploded and their daily consumption of food got spread to the people that actually need it to wake up tomorrow.
    YOU JUST HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!

    No, seriously, it's not that Americans are eating all the food in the world. They are using all the resources, and energy, but that's another problem.
    Part of America's problem is the the people with the lowest incomes get the unhealthiest food (It is basically empty calories and chemicals) whereas the more well-off have natural, fresh food available to them. Notice how in America, fatness does not correspond to wealth. In fact, the opposite is true. Our lower classes have a higher rate of obesity.

    To say that OH AMERICANS ARE GREEDY is a terrible oversimplification. Sure, there are some greedy fat people, but believe it or not, there are other far more wasteful things that Americans do than eating lots of food.

    For example, eating a lot of meat is bad not because it directly deprives Africa of their meat, but because it pollutes, uses energy, and requires a lot of money.
  • People don't die of hunger due to lack of available food. There is plenty of food for everyone, even in much of the third world. It's just not distributed properly, due largely to warlords, economic oppression, and other factors.
    Distribution is a part of the food production cycle. It counts equally when you start talking about the efficiency of food production. I didn't say that people died due to a global lack of food.
    We can't just send our extra food there. In the past, we've found that doing so makes things worse, driving down prices locally (thus preventing local farmers from even bothering to grow anything to become self-sufficient) or suplying warlords with money.
    Not every piece of land can grow crops equally sufficient. It will costs millions to grow anything on the top of mount Everest, no?
    YOU JUST HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!
    That would mean I hate part of my own freedoms. I'm not a masochist.
    To say that OH AMERICANS ARE GREEDY is a terrible oversimplification.
    I said first world. And you cannot deny it with the following in mind:
    the government sometimes pays them to not grow crops.
    there are other far more wasteful things that Americans do than eating lots of food.
    I know, but that is not the topic at hand, hence completely irrelevant at this point and why I did not go into that. The topic is food consumption.
    Notice how in America, fatness does not correspond to wealth. In fact, the opposite is true. Our lower classes have a higher rate of obesity.
    Which is mind-baffling. US citizens had way more money to spend than we on this side of the pond. Yet you managed to get the highest obesity percentages in the world!
  • edited March 2009
    Which is mind-baffling. US citizens had way more money to spend than we on this side of the pond. Yet you managed to get the highest obesity percentages in the world!
    While the U.S. may have more money on average than other nations, it's is unequally distributed among the population. From USC, the bottom 80% of the population only own's 16% of the wealth, while the top 20% own 84%.

    image
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • Which is mind-baffling. US citizens had way more money to spend than we on this side of the pond. Yet you managed to get the highest obesity percentages in the world!
    While the U.S. may have more money on average than other nations, it's is unequally distributed among the population. FromUSC, the bottom 80% of the population only own's 16% of the wealth, while the top 20% own 84%.

    image
    That is why American should be communist.
    Is it fair that some families have to decide between food or soap, while others can buy Ferrari's without even a second thought?
  • ......
    edited March 2009
    While the U.S. may have more money on average than other nations, it's is unequally distributed among the population. FromUSC, the bottom 80% of the population only own's 16% of the wealth, while the top 20% own 84%.
    This goes across the board for pretty much every nation. The rich are called the rich because they have all that money. The percentages differ of course between countries.

    EDIT:
    That is why American should be communist.
    Careful, dem be killing words. Killing of you that be.
    Post edited by ... on
  • Which is mind-baffling. US citizens had way more money to spend than we on this side of the pond. Yet you managed to get the highest obesity percentages in the world!
    While the U.S. may have more money on average than other nations, it's is unequally distributed among the population. FromUSC, the bottom 80% of the population only own's 16% of the wealth, while the top 20% own 84%.

    image
    That is why American should be communist.
    Is it fair that some families have to decide between food or soap, while others can buy Ferrari's without even a second thought?
    Things are totally awesome in North Korea, Cuba, and China. They were even awesome-r in the USSR.
  • Ok, I come from a third world country and I have lived in America for the last 8 years. Something that I have noticed is that here in America it is better to buy in bulk because is cheaper, while in a third world country like Peru people buy food everyday because that is cheaper for them that way. Also here in America people buy a lot of cans of food with preservatives or frozen food. Food on third world countries are mostly grown depending on season the produce is grown and they do not normally buy food on cans or with preservatives, we like our veggies and fruits to be fresh, the sad thing about that is that most of the really awesome fruit is grown in the Amazon, and because the Andes is in between the Amazon the the coast, the people from the coast have to be very careful when choosing what to buy when produce arrive from the Amazons. I remember my mom running away from the can section of the supermarket back in Peru. There is a saying in Peru, you can be poor in here but you won't die of hunger in Peru.
    Also, every once in a while when I see my parents do grocery for the week I would tell them "you guys bought too much, we didn't use to buy food like this when we were in Peru", their response would normally be "Well, we are not in Peru anymore". Also, something that I notice just recently is that Peru is one of the few countries that would eat anything with rice, and if there is no rice we would put potatoes. I also notice that it is way cheaper to buy orange juice than making your own orange juice here in America, back in Peru I would get like 15 oranges for 50 cents of a dollar, that would make me a nice jar or orange juice. Fruits expensive here in the USA, well at least in Virginia :(
  • So firstly, I live in South Africa.
    If modern and sustainable methods were employed in, say, Africa, they would have tons of food. The problem is political instability and the poverty that results from it brings hunger with it. It's not all drought and crop famine, you realize. Though that happens, it could be combated with the proper distribution of emergency supplies. It's that because of poor economic conditions people are still doing the subsistence farming that people did hundreds of years ago. In Europe in the middle ages, famine was a real concern. However, today most starvation is caused by the inability to get food to people vs. a lack of overall food.
    I agree with the poverty aspect, although I don't agree that the political instability is as much of an issue. Fair enough, in places like Zimbabwe (where I was born) the war vets send their lackeys out into the rural areas and they clobber people to a pulp, which means less subsistence farming due to a lack of manpower - but in general, politics don't play an overly large role.

    Modern farming methods - a good idea in theory, but I still don't think production would be even close to the scale of production in the US.
    When it comes to the issue of food I have to agree with Rym, it's just poorly distributed.
    Distribution doesn't play much of a role either. Obviously there are more (and larger, and better stocked) supermarkets in urban areas, but I have never seen remotely similar quantities of food available here - the fresh fruit and vegetable section in the store I went to in Chicago was the size of an average supermarket here. Also - I saw what I presume to be gallon bottles of vodka on sale in the shops, and the packets of chips were easily over a kilogram.
    We can't just send our extra food there. In the past, we've found that doing so makes things worse, driving down prices locally (thus preventing local farmers from even bothering to grow anything to become self-sufficient) or suplying warlords with money.
    I agree that efforts to distribute food are often not received well, but the general first world stance of not wanting to make things worse is disproportionate to the severity of the problem. The other explanation is usually that the people in the country wouldn't eat donated food because they are unfamiliar with it and it doesn't form part of their staple diet.

    Give a person who lives off a diet of maize products every day anything with protein in it and I guarantee that they will eat it - and since the only food that you could potentially send would have to be preserved or canned, I don't believe that would have an effect on local food prices to a degree that would lead to local farmers throwing in the towel. It might lead to a mentality of dependancy, which I have found is a problem.

    Which brings me to:
    Modern efficiency != awesome. If it were, there wouldn't be people dying of hunger on this planet.

    Sarai, it's all very simple, the US, or better, the first world is just a bunch of power hungry insignificant specks. In the case of the US 40% of the insignificant specks that don't have a position with 'power' (and even some who do), are left with being just hungry. These stuff their faces with crap and more crap whilst ignoring their health.
    Part of America's problem is the the people with the lowest incomes get the unhealthiest food (It is basically empty calories and chemicals) whereas the more well-off have natural, fresh food available to them. Notice how in America, fatness does not correspond to wealth. In fact, the opposite is true. Our lower classes have a higher rate of obesity.

    For example, eating a lot of meat is bad not because it directly deprives Africa of their meat, but because it pollutes, uses energy, and requires a lot of money.
    Modern efficiency should be shared to solve the world's hunger problems in the ideal world, but I'm guessing that would also make that same efficiency less profitable in the country of it's origin. I do think the US is power-hungry, although not in this context and that's another topic for another discussion (which perhaps I'll start at some point).

    Gomidog: you raise an interesting point that I have oft debated with friends. Lower social classes having access to less nutritious food - that is completely a first world phenomenon that I feel is slowly spilling over into the third world as fresh food preservation methods become more advanced. Fresh fruit and veg used to be incredibly cheap here because we live in a country that is relatively agriculturally dominant in Sub-saharan Africa. While it is still cheaper here than living off take-aways, access to decent, long-lasting fruit and veg tends to have dropped dramatically for the majority of the population. As a relatively affluent member of African society, however, tend to shop at Woolworth food for the primary reason that their fresh fruit and vegetables will stay fresh in my fridge for two weeks (I would guess that some sort of irradiation is involved) but it cuts a deep gash into my entertainment budget for the month. I could live off tinned foods and save enormously.

    Phew - I'm done for now.
  • edited March 2009
    I agree with the poverty aspect, although I don't agree that the political instability is as much of an issue. Fair enough, in places like Zimbabwe (where I was born) the war vets send their lackeys out into the rural areas and they clobber people to a pulp, which means less subsistence farming due to a lack of manpower - but in general, politics don't play an overly large role.
    Really? So you're saying that Somalia (not to mention the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and Chad {not even mentioning Sudan}) is not getting effective aid for reasons other then political instability?

    Lets look at the problem this way. Lets say we have supply of food that can go to a group of poor hungry people. We can choose to feed 100 people somewhere in the world, where do you think we will send that food. To a failed state in Africa were the food might not get to those people who need it or should we send it to a country that has poor people but is political stability would (like China) or a country that we have a network for food distribution on the ground (Iraq or afghanstan).
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • edited March 2009
    Keep in mind that "First World" nations have encountered many instances when they attempted to give aid in many forms and are sent packing by various governments (from China to Burma).

    Distribution issues are far more than spoilage and corruption. It takes massive amounts of energy to transport food from one nation to another. If we use the example of 'canned goods', then the sheer tonnage of food will require energy (which isn't cheap, nor always available). The best form of aid is helping to build stronger infrastructures, forgiving debt, and not requiring third world countries to collect ludicrously high taxes in order to have enough revenue to secure loans future loans.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Ok, I come from a third world country and I have lived in America for the last 8 years. Something that I have noticed is that here in America it is better to buy in bulk because is cheaper, while in a third world country like Peru people buy food everyday because that is cheaper for them that way. Also here in America people buy a lot of cans of food with preservatives or frozen food. Food on third world countries are mostly grown depending on season the produce is grown and they do not normally buy food on cans or with preservatives, we like our veggies and fruits to be fresh, the sad thing about that is that most of the really awesome fruit is grown in the Amazon, and because the Andes is in between the Amazon the the coast, the people from the coast have to be very careful when choosing what to buy when produce arrive from the Amazons. I remember my mom running away from the can section of the supermarket back in Peru. There is a saying in Peru, you can be poor in here but you won't die of hunger in Peru.
    Also, every once in a while when I see my parents do grocery for the week I would tell them "you guys bought too much, we didn't use to buy food like this when we were in Peru", their response would normally be "Well, we are not in Peru anymore". Also, something that I notice just recently is that Peru is one of the few countries that would eat anything with rice, and if there is no rice we would put potatoes. I also notice that it is way cheaper to buy orange juice than making your own orange juice here in America, back in Peru I would get like 15 oranges for 50 cents of a dollar, that would make me a nice jar or orange juice. Fruits expensive here in the USA, well at least in Virginia :(
    Same thing here in Costa Rica, with the coast a few hours away, even fish and shrimp is really fresh, and we also eat everything with rice/potatoes or at least bread.
  • Same thing here in Costa Rica, with the coast a few hours away, even fish and shrimp is really fresh, and we also eat everything with rice/potatoes or at least bread.
    BTW, Roboto, I might be going to Costa Rica next month to visit my Great Aunt. Rym might come to.
  • Same thing here in Costa Rica, with the coast a few hours away, even fish and shrimp is really fresh, and we also eat everything with rice/potatoes or at least bread.
    BTW, Roboto, I might be going to Costa Rica next month to visit my Great Aunt. Rym might come to.
    Nice! If you need any help just PM me.
Sign In or Register to comment.