Tart cherries are supply-controlled because they are processed into other goods, like pie filling, and can be stored for long duration (multiple seasons). The supply-control regulation is designed to prevent a surplus crop from depressing the market to the point where it's no longer viable to grow tart cherries - reducing future supply, ie. the regulation is designed to provide a consistent, stable supply.

Surplus tart cherry crops are rarely destroyed. In the event of a surplus, they are often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

Yup. The regulations on food in the US is exactly to make sure the shelves stay stocked no matter what. Without such regulations, you'd experience random items being unavailable and price shocks.

One thing people often don't figure or realize is food takes time to grow. It requires long term thinking to make sure supplies are sufficient. Left to their own devices, farmers will often chase after last season's cash crop. That is bad. It's far better for farmers to stick to more predictable growing and for more dedicated incentives to be issued.

I grew up on a farm and lived around farmers. This is my lived experience.

I saw first hand farmers tear up a barley fields to plant wheat when the price got high enough.

Farming is a game of speculation. Planting last year's cash crop can be a successful strategy just like buying APPL today will likely yield good returns. Yet, it's a very hard market to predict with a lot of luck involved. Maybe only a few chase the cash crop and you win big. Maybe everyone does and you lose. Maybe there's a natural or political disaster that pumps up your crop.

There was nothing insulting, condensing, or dismissive about my comment. Highly speculative markets, like food, have booms and busts that can swing wildly. That's bad for something like food. The free market does not work with crops.

> The free market does not work with crops.

I'd argue that this should be refined to something like "farmers that speculate heavily struggle in an under-regulated free market".

Financial stability in highly volatile markets depends on appropriate planning, saving, and distribution. I say this from the investment perspective, but I would venture to guess that it also applies to hard goods like food-stuffs.

I disagree with that refinement.

The nature of farming is speculation. It's inescapable. In a completely free market there's no way to guarantee success. Even with the best planning and saving you can't know what the rest of the market is doing and because of the long tail, you are locked in to harvesting and selling your crop no matter what.

You can speculate and be the farmer that always plants and grows wheat. You'll see booms and busts based on that. You can also switch up what you are growing based on your best guess about demand. Both strategies can be successful.

Funnily, one way to make farming less risky is a futures contract. And, if you know anything about futures commodity trading you know they are some of the most risky forms of trading.

It's true though, these regulations exists because speculation and profit-chasing in agriculture is what lead to the dust bowl and worsened the great depression. We really, really don't want a repeat of that.

The amazing thing about people failing to learn from history is that everybody thinks they're too smart to (a) learn history or (b) follow rules enacted to prevent the disasters of yesteryear.

I think your fun cherry fact is pretty inaccurate. If you're referring to USDA Marketing Order #930, it's basically about setting sales limits in bumper crop years to avoid a situation where so many cherries hit the market that farmers lose money simply by harvesting them. They're free to donate the cherries etc. but again, they would be essentially wasting their own money by putting in the time and effort to harvest them beyond the amount they're allowed to sell.

This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.

But in a pure market that would mean that during overproduction times, prices should be low. Which they artificially aren't through industry price fixing.

I’m not sure what a pure market is.

The result that free markets are Prato optimal, though, requires conditions like low barriers to entry, perfect information, and low cost transactions… none of which seem very well met in the case of agriculture.

It turns out that low barriers to entry, perfect information and low cost transactions are almost never present.

There is no reason to obliterate food, you should give it away to those in need.

People do not eat tart cherries directly. They are processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice concentrate, etc.

Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional processing.

If you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about...

> It's still food, full of flavor and calories

Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.

Coming back later, I realized earlier I looked up the calories but I didn't compare them to anything else. So while tart cherries "only" have 50 calories per 100g, sweet cherries are up around 60, not very different. An apple also has about 50-60 per 100g. So does an orange.

Fruit isn't super dense in calories to begin with because it has so much water, but it's still a meaningful amount, and tart cherries are pretty standard among fruit.

Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all.

Maybe just quit being needlessly pedantic? Every point you've attempted to raise in this thread has been entirely pointless and equally ridiculous.

> Which is to say consuming tart cherries is not a significant source of calories and not something "people in need" are in need of at all.

This applies to almost all fruit though. But saying people in need don't need any fruit would be a terrible stance. What gives?

So we're moving goalposts? Where did I say people in need don't need any fruit?

People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries that are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions. Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

Which argument will you come up with next?

You've bounced all over the place in this thread. Just let it rest...

> So we're moving goalposts? Where did I say people in need don't need any fruit?

You gave calories as a reason people don't need this fruit.

But that logic would apply to almost fruit.

So I said it would be bad to say people in need don't need fruit, while pointing out that contrast. I'm not accusing you of thinking that, I'm accusing you of using flawed logic.

> People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries

There's plenty of calories in a reasonable serving, and again that argument would apply to almost any fruit. It's like complaining about a single blueberry having too few calories.

> are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions.

They can cook with them. Lots of things are rarely eaten on their own and need to be processed, costing more ingredients and time than the pre-processed form. This includes flour!

> Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

This is true and has nothing to do with my point.

> Which argument will you come up with next?

If you bring up a new reason to imply that donating tart cherries is unreasonable (even though it does happen!), I might disagree with that reason. Otherwise I have had one single argument and it hasn't changed: Donating tart cherries is a good idea.

I don't know why you're so fixated on whether people eat something directly. That doesn't affect what all2 was saying or what voxl was saying or what anyone else has been saying, but you keep acting like it does.

> If you researched this regulation even a little

Yeah yeah yeah I saw that in your other comment.

That's a completely different argument.

The argument you made in this comment is still a bad one.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to move the goalposts...

So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them?

What was even the point of your snarky comment then?

> So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them?

In the context of someone talking about home cooks using them, and you acting like "People do not eat tart cherries directly." is a counterargument, yes I felt compelled to correct that.

The incorrect thing you were implying had nothing to do with how often they're actually destroyed. So why would that stop me?

People do not eat tart cherries directly. The overwhelming majority of people will never process them into something edible either.

"People in need" are not going to spend time and money processing tart cherries into juice concentrate or pie filling... especially when a can of either is cheaper than the raw ingredients to make your own.

Your point is ridiculous, absurd and pedantic beyond any reasonable purpose.

Most of what you are saying is correct, but I feel the need to respond to your far too many repeated assertions that "People do not eat tart cherries directly": Except for when they do!

I grow several varieties of sour cherries in my yard, and frequently use them whole and without further processing. Usually I use them in a recipe like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clafoutis. Sometimes I pit them first, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'll even happily snack on them raw.

No, like most small fruit you aren't going eat them because you are desperate for calories. But they actually aren't any harder to prepare or use than lots of other tasty things that people traditionally grow.

Ok drive to Michigan and haul away 3 tons of cherries.

Are Michigan tart cherry farmers allowed to sell direct to customers without additional licensing requirements and food inspections?

Insightful retort, did you forget the slight issue of it being illegal?