7

I recently saw a billboard with "better ate than never", the phrase was new to me so I looked it up and found.

Emphases mine:

In addition to wasting precious resources, nearly all of the food waste ends up in landfills where it decomposes and releases methane, a form of climate pollution that is up to 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In fact, food is the single largest contributor to U.S. landfills today. All this while one in eight Americans don’t have a steady supply of food to their tables.

Source Reducing Food Waste

Every year, 40 percent of food in the US is thrown away without getting eaten, contributing to the 1.3 billion tons of perfectly edible food that are lost or wasted worldwide annually, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. Considering that almost a billion people go hungry every day in a world that produces more than enough food to feed everyone here, it's worth being aware of from an early age.

Source Peter Rabbit Joins Better Ate Than Never Campaign to Reduce Food Waste

The implication is that if wealthy (relatively), consumers stopped wasting food, it would impact hunger for the less fortunate.

I have no doubt food ending up in landfills is problematic.

I also agree that a food bank is a better place for excess food to go.

A leap of logic, implies that if consumers only buy what they are going to actually eat, there will be little or no consumer wastage.

Edit, include to explicit claim

Cutting food waste by a quarter would mean enough for everyone, says UN source

If all wealthy consumers stopped buying food that they ended up throwing out, would it help the billion hungry people in the world?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Christian, Giter, DenisS, Brythan, Oddthinking Jun 28 at 2:32

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Neither of those sources you cite makes the claim you are asking about. Please provide a source that actually claims what you are asking about. – Christian Jun 27 at 14:36
  • 1
    Your sources seem to claiming that Americans waste food, and separately claim that enough food is produced to feed everyone. Those claims are addressed in this similar question. However, what you're asking is if Americans didn't waste that food it would go to people without a steady food supply, which your sources are not claiming. You should look for a notable source claiming that wasted food would be used to help reduce hunger if it wasn't wasted, as per your title. – Giter Jun 27 at 14:49
  • Thanks for adding a source, but the UN is claiming worldwide. not USA. Your commentary that food waste is wealthy consumers buying food and throwing it out is not an accurate version of the claim, which includes the entire food chain - especially supermarkets. But ultimately, you are asking "If we had a new surplus of food production, what would happen to the economy?" which is a What If? claim probably better suited to Economics.SE than Skeptics.SE. – Oddthinking Jun 28 at 2:35

Browse other questions tagged .