Is it ethical for ugly produce companies to position themselves as social enterprises or as solutions to the food waste challenge? Why or why not?

Following a USDA report that nearly one-third of food is wasted at the retail and consumer levels, “ugly produce” innovators began receiving millions of dollars in private funding to address food waste. However, some people question whether for-profit, U.S.-based ugly produce companies such as Hungry Harvest and Imperfect Produce actually help solve food waste challenges. For example, non-profit Phat Beets, which experienced a 30 percent drop in subscriptions, accused venture capital-backed Imperfect Produce of commodifying need, undercutting prices, and undermining community-supported agriculture efforts. An agricultural scientist noted that most waste comes from consumers, restaurants, and grocery stores, which are not impacted by taking ugly produce from farmers. A related argument is that farmers would otherwise use the ugly produce to feed the hungry, feed animals, or fertilize the soil, so it is not clear if selling it to consumers would limit food waste. However, others argue that ugly produce companies can help address food loss, which, like waste, impacts the environment and the economy. Further, marketing ugly produce may start a conversation that raises awareness about food waste.