3 reasons why

Although I have yet to find anyone who is pro-food waste, the major challenge would be people who are obvious or indifferent to food waste. Unfortunately, that would be most of the world’s population. Opponents of food waste attempt to appeal to the diverse people of the world through three basic arguments: environmental sacrifices, financial consequences, and ethics.

The reasons for environmental and financial consequences often overlap. By wasting food, we waste the energy, land, and water used to make that food, and thus, the environmental and financial cost is for nothing. Some sources focus on the financial loss because most people and all businesses see money as a top priority. Certainly, the 750 billion dollars spent on wasted food each year will shock most people. One source argues that our food system is corrupted and our entire economy is wasteful; a valid point considering that rich nations overproduce. In addition to financial problems, sources that seek to appeal to those who are eco-conscious emphasize environmental impacts such as methane emissions from landfills, water usage, destructive agriculture, and groundwater pollution.

The ethics argument uses facts to support opinions about moral responsibility. For instance, it is hard to be indifferent when someone informs you that 870 million people go hungry each day during which the world wastes 30% of the food it produces. In my research, I noticed that many sources used contrast as an effective tool of persuasion. They juxtaposed surplus and scarcity, appreciation and carelessness, knowledge and ignorance. I found it useful that some sources explained how older generations valued their food more due to hardships they lived through, suggesting that the new generation should consider themselves lucky and not abuse their good fortune. They also argued that the more fortunate should help the needy by redistributing unwanted food. Interestingly, one source quoted different religious texts to strengthen their argument that wasting food is immoral.

Overall, the financial, environmental, and ethical rationales are all backed up by valid evidence. Opinions come into play when people disagree about whether the evidence is significant.  Thus, the most effective arguments combine facts about these three areas in order to appeal to people with different ideas about what matters most.