this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
375 points (98.7% liked)

Not The Onion

21437 readers
1486 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Triumph@fedia.io 42 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Oversupply would make them more expensive to harvest than they're worth, I'd bet. And the federal grant money to clear the orchards means the land can be put to other use.

That's economics, not capitalism. Dont you dare stop hating capitalism though.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, no, that's literally capitalism.

As soon as you start worrying about profits with respect to feeding people, you're talking about capitalism.

"More expensive than their worth" here means "I can't sell them for enough of a profit."

That's purely capitalism. If we only cared about making sure everyone's need for food is met, the sentence above would be complete nonsense.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You realize that the farmers produce the peaches, right? And that if it costs more to harvest them that the peaches are worth, you don't harvest them. Then you have a giant pile of rotten peaches anyway that has to be cleaned up, so maybe you harvest them anyway and take the loss yourself. Fine.

Now you - the farmer - have a surplus of peach trees that will grow new peaches, and those new peaches won't sell either. You'll take loss year after year this way. No, the best thing to do is to repurpose the land for something else, and that means uprooting the peach trees. It's a good thing there's federal grant money to absorb some of that cost.

Capitalism is where there's an ownership class that contributes essentially nothing and a labor class that produces the value, and the former exploits the latter. This situation is not that; the farmer is (ideally) the labor (unless factory farms, or unfair compensation otherwise). The peaches having more or less worth due to market conditions is because of a free market, which is distinct from capitalism.

Growing crops is work. Harvesting crops is work. Transporting, processing, inspecting, warehousing, inventorying, packaging, retailing - all work. People - workers - expend effort to create the value of cans of peaches in pantries, and each person should be compensated fairly for the value their effort produces.

Never anywhere in my commentary did I refer to profits. If the peaches are worth less than they cost to harvest, the value of the labor already invested is lost, and the farm as a whole is at risk. Especially for the remaining family farms, this means that corporate farm companies will buy the land and consolidate their power. It's a good thing there's federal grant money to absorb some of the cost of retooling.

I'm as anti-capitalist as they come, and there's parts of this situation to be justifiably pissed about. The fact that a single cannery closing results in this is one. The fact that the corporation that ran that cannery may well have closed it for profit reasons is another. But getting pissed about repurposing land for something more useful? Seems ill informed.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

If the peaches are worth less than they cost to harvest, the value of the labor already invested is lost, and the farm as a whole is at risk. Especially for the remaining family farms, this means that corporate farm companies will buy the land and consolidate their power.

THIS IS LITERALLY CAPITALISM DUDE

You are so deep in this shit that you can't even see how it's coloring everything you're saying here.

If we lived in a society that didn't value profit over feeding humans, none of what you said would matter. What would matter would be making sure everyone is fed. Even if that means someone has to do work that isn't "profitable".

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

I can kind of see where both of you are coming from.

This doesn't necessarily mean we are going to be compromising feeding humans, it simply means they are backing away from peaches, specifically. If people don't even want to eat that many peaches, then we might be wasting farming capacity and we should be growing different crops. Maybe a more dense crop, maybe with other nutritional properties. If you insist on continuing to grow peaches that people don't even want to bother eating, then you aren't helping people get the food and nutrition they need, you are just generating rotting fruit. It says they are giving money to farmers to help them pivot to different crops.

But we might have too many peaches in the first place because of capitalist flaws. Some del monte leadership mismanages things and wastes valuable cropland on trees that aren't really what people want or need.

Or it could have darker outcomes, like 'poors' are hungry but we don't think it's worth it so we just convert acres and acres of arable land to datacenters for the tech bros.

But, by itself, cutting back on one crop does not necessarily mean it's some capitalist disaster.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No, that's a free market, as I explained before you stopped reading.

You're the only one talking about profit. I never have. Oh wait, I bet you don't understand what profit is, either. That's wealth gained above and beyond the value of the labor input, because the consumer price is higher than it needs to be and/or labor is being undercompensated for their work. Profit is what the ownership class takes from labor without adding any real value. Yes, that's capitalism. Profit isn't "I have this thing which is a manifestation of my labor, and I will exchange it with you fairly for something you have which is a manifestation of your labor. We might even use an agreed-upon third carrier of value (currency) to make our exchange simpler and fairer, and make it so that lots of things are readily exchanged between all sorts of people. That makes the fair distribution of wealth more efficient (ideally).

This will all make more sense when you're out of your mom's basement.

[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 2 points 8 hours ago

The US government had several programs to buy farming surpluses, ensuring the farmers were adequately paid and food was not wasted, before the corporate farms lobbied them out of existence. You're talking down to someone while not seeing the connection in your own statement between profit and cost.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 47 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oversupply needs diversion of that supply to other uses - not destruction of established production.

It takes years to establish a productive fruit tree. If the land is really more valuable producing plums or apricots instead of peaches, then, sure, migrate it over slowly. Wholesale destruction with the assumption "the land will be put to better use" is the kind of bullshit that (all too rarely) gets laws and regulations passed to stop it.

If there are too many peaches for local markets, export. If the whole world is drowning in whole peaches, juice 'em.

[–] VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Yes! I was looking for this comment. I live smack in California central valley. Farms here flex continuously with a multitude of crops. Strawberry, walnuts, cherry, and almond are top long-runners. There are also so many unexpected other high value crops here; like blueberry, spinach, sugar beet, olives, garlic, pistachios, etc.

Del Monte was only one processor. But every one of their factories continues on doing something else that's currently in abundance here.

If local market isn't demanding, one final attempt is the export market. We are currently doing this with alfalfa (hay), rice, and wine.

And on a final fruit note, pears are slowly following the fate of peaches. Dont know why. Currently Brazil and Mexico just make 'em better.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

you take that back i got a peach ranch up offa 505 that'll knock your socks off (/false offense)

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

no juice, can. can.

[–] pipi1234@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The human and logical thing to do would be offer these fruits to people to pick for free.

This measure is capitalist because they'd rather throw away food than giving away something without profit or even damaging to other producer's margin.

This is all kinds of fucked up and is totally related to capitalism incentives.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

oh dude, i'm having generational ptsd flashbacks to the 70s. i didn't even work the strawberry fields myself and i can see them. my hands stained red. fuck.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

I can absolutely guarantee you the peaches would mostly just rot in that approach.

Their problem is that people just flat out aren't interested/need as many peaches we are growing. So it totally makes sense to change much of that land to do another crop. Peaches are not necessarily the most efficient, or healthy nutritious option that the land could possible support.

The people who might be in need of that fruit are likely no where near the orchards. So the direct approach is right out.

Now this is where organizations like food banks can and do step in as able. They have people who are intrinsically dedicated to make it work out for people to have food even if the capitalist concerns don't make sense. Sure, they can take over logistics when no one else wants them (my family has volunteered and dealt with all sorts of farmer surplus, including separating rot from viable food). Ultimately even they wouldn't want an oversupply of any particular crop, as the hungry need diverse nutrition, not just a ton of peaches. As it stands a fair amount of the food is ruined before it can be distributed even with food bank efforts already.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It sounded like another aspect of all that was that Del Monte may have partially or wholly roped them in to exclusive supply deals, cutting way down on their ability to deal with other potential canners or whatnot.

When farmer Craig Watts did his exposé on Purdue, it sounded a lot like a share-cropping / coal-mining situation, in which the chicken farmers had little real autonomy, and became super-reliant on Purdue for everything. Doesn't sound quite as bad in this Del Monte situation, but some similarities hit me.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago

You are absolutely correct, and I should have considered that aspect.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Harvest it. Turn it into canned peaches. Finish the harvest. Export it to places where peaches aren't that common. ???. Profit.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The cannery closed. That's why this is happening.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Uh huh, and that had nothing to do with capitalism or profits, right?

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Well, in this case those profits might be modeling a real world situation. If Del Monte was pushing canned Peaches more than people needed/wanted, then changing the farms from one crop to another isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

🎵 Peaches come from a can

🎵 They were put there by a man

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Peaches came from a can

They were put there by a man

But the factoryyyyy is no mooooore

[–] cabillaud@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago

I like canned goods, because they last longer, and don't go bad as quick. They are usually cheap, and affordable.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 14 hours ago

Do you know what's worse? Destroying tons of peaches while millions go hungry simply because they couldn't make the right amount of profit from it.