What are some food items that cost less than what they "should"?

otp@sh.itjust.works to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 140 points –

Bananas are ridiculously cheap even up here in Canada, and they aren't grown anywhere near here. Yet a banana can grow, be harvested, be shipped, be stocked, and then be purchased by me for less than it'd cost to mail a letter across town. (Well, if I could buy a single banana maybe...or maybe that's not the best comparison, but I think you get my point)

Along the banana's journey, the farmer, the harvester, the shipper, the grocer, the clerk, and the cashier all (presumably) get paid. Yet a single banana is mere cents. If you didn't know any better, you might think a single banana should cost $10!

I'm presuming that this is because of some sort of exploitation somewhere down the line, or possibly loss-leading on the grocery store's side of things.

I'm wondering what other products like bananas are a lot cheaper than they "should" be (e.g., based on how far they have to travel, or how difficult they are to produce, or how much money we're saving "unethically").

I've heard that this applies to coffee and chocolate to varying extents, but I'm not certain.

Anyone know any others?

119

You are viewing a single comment

they didn't say any of what you said.

you are arguing with a strawman.

That's what a farm is. They're saying we should keep farming them or else they would go extinct and that would be worse than continuing to farm them.

they did not say what you said. you are putting words in their mouth.

What did they say then? What are the implications? what are they arguing against?

No that's a quote, what did they imply? what position are they defending? don't be a child, looking only at the surface. Think about it for a minute.

you are putting words in their mouth and arguing with a strawman.

you should read a book about subtext and implication. I think you're probably very young and have a mind that takes things very literally. When we say things, it implies things.

They are not arguing for the establishment of cow sanctuaries and global veganism they are putting forward a disingenuous and nonsensical defense of their own eating of meat.

>you should read a book about subtext and implication.

you should read what socrates said about rhetoricians

I don't care how old you think I am because my age doesn't matter. what I say is true or false regardless of my age. attacking a speaker instead of their statements is textbook ad hominem and expressly prohibited on lemmy.world