Instead of the perfectly-fine “expired” food going to the dumpster, feed people. Help the community.

  • LimitedDuck@septic.win
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This would be a good thing, though I think it’s trickier than it appears:

    • How arbitrary are “best before” and “expires on” labels and how do they differ from food to food?
    • How do the labels themselves differ from each other and how to do they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction?
    • Could acknowledging that “expired” food is still good cause expiry dates to just be extended? How far could they be extended before food actually is dangerous past the label?
    • How does liability work when someone gets sick from “expired” food? Does it change when it’s part of a structured donation system?
    • neptune@dmv.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, to the last bullet, we have good Samaritan laws. We could totally pass a law that says “grocery stores can and should provide reasonably safe, leftover food to poor people and will not be punished if those reasonable actions result in bad things happening”. You are allowed to just wail on an unconscious dudes chest for minutes until paramedics arrive and then not be sued for the three cracked ribs.

      But cmon. We all know that grocery stores know that once people realize expired food is generally safe a) people will buy less food and b) people will show up to get free expired food and buy less food.

      Scarcity is a necessity under capitalism. Movie theaters aren’t going to release blooper reels for free. They add them to the credits or put them in the editors cut release. A luxury clothing brand isn’t going to sell seconds, they will destroy or rework material that isn’t sellable.

        • ByteWizard@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Capitalism, which provides such an excess of food that we’re throwing it out, is the problem? True, when the shelves are bare and no-one has food this won’t be a problem anymore.

          But it’s not exactly a step forward is it?

          • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t understand your meaning of your comment. Not having capitalism means bare shelves in the future? How?

          • Sloth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are completly right. It’s not capitalism’s fault that companies would rather destroy essentials to save a few bucks rather than give it to those who need them. No, obviously the poor people just need to stop being poor. That’ll solve global hunger without cutting into the profits of those poor CEOs.

    • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I work in retail. Stuff already goes to food banks. The dates on those products are usually the sell by date, and quite arbitrary. They’re mostly for quality sake, rather than “not safe to consume” sake. Like a loaf of bread may not be as moist and soft as it was when it was fresh, but it’s perfectly fine to eat. Companies want you to be able to buy a product and expect consistent quality. But if you’re hungry and in need, stale Oreos are better than no cookies at all.

      • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Agree 100%

        Not that it is expected to be content with stale oreos, but yea. Some is better than none :)

        Perfection of quality expectations ruins so many things way too fast.

      • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yet! A Kroger isn not equipped to handle it yet. Work needs to be put into the idea, a plan will form, and then it can be executed.

        I feel like too many people read idealistic future plans and assume it will be inmediate and therefore dismiss the idea entirely. Have hope :)

          • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That is a big leap to helicopter pads.

            Rather than defeat the idea, why not try to think of ways it could work. Ideas need time to grow and flourish with revisions. Nothing is made perfectly the first time. What changes to the idea would you make in good faith?

            Just because an idea won’t happen doesn’t mean we can’t explore the ‘what if’ :)

            There isn’t much to retrofit. It could be like adding another pharmacy department counter.

      • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Also, distribution problem? The food is literally already there. Open something akin to the pharmacy counter area and a few staff could handle it.

          • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Staff from the store itself. I see no barrier for a large business with m/billions in profit to add additional staff to run the food bank area.

            To add a capitalist view: the food bank brings in people who might buy more. Yes, they are there to get food for survival, but the money saved might be spent on other goods like clothes or supplies in the store. (Stuff they need but wouldn’t be able to buy for food budget reasons).

            • BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So you’re not suggesting some sort of legal requirement? You want a company to voluntarily add labor cost, storage costs, any liability, equipment costs, etc on the chance people coming in for food assistance might buy stuff that not all grocery stores even carry?

              Companies aren’t going to do that voluntarily, that’s not a realistic expectation. The ROI on your suggestion doesn’t make sense, the only way something like that gets staffed is if you convince states to pass some sort of requirement that companies do this…

              • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is an idea to flesh out. There are so many barriers. When you discover a problem, try to also find a solution instead of tossing it in the trash.

                (Loss leaders are a thing too)

                • BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You may want to take your own advice, coming up with unrealistic solutions to every realistic problem posed to you isnt helpful either.

                  Loss leaders is a sales strategy that does not require additional overhead like permanent staffing, storage, and additional liability. Suggesting that they are makes it seem like you don’t understand sales, Operations, or logistics. I’m really trying to grasp how you think your “solutions” are helpful. Would you be comfortable providing insight into what industry you have the most experience in so that I can try to see it through the lens your looking at the problem through? (i.e. finance, customer service, procurement, etc).

                  • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Social work. I work in social work. I added loss leaders as a comment to provide context that stores make financial decisions that are a loss for the specific reason of getting more people to the store so they buy more. A food bank might be a loss that leads to more sales.

                    Ok. I got my “free food”, but maybe I want some ketchup for my potatoes too? I don’t mean to imply a foodbank will bring in net profits, but it can lessen the cost of running the bank.

                    Is a food store having a charity branch unrealistic?

    • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A note: stores throw out unexpired goods all the time.

      As for food safety, yup, that’s important. Some goods could be too risky, like raw meat. But so so many goods are processed and stay good long past the expiry.

      Expiry does take into account oxygen. Once you open a bag, air gets in and then it could get stale, mold, etc. If it has been sealed in its package the whole time, there was never any (*a lot of) air to start those food-ruining things.