Unsold food that is given away creates a liability if it causes problems. Food banks are the middle man in that respect, where they can toss things that aren’t going to stay good and provide for people with the rest. So here’s where government, regulation, and socialism comes into play. Companies should be encouraged with money to do something other than toss that food. Better systems should be in place to move that food to the food bank. Better regulation there to make sure that the food is being examined well enough. More places for all this to happen.
This ignores fixing the real problem, profit driven consumption, societies where people aren’t able to provide for themselves, etc.
So by itself you aren’t going to get unsold food to the needy, the risk and cost is too great for companies.
Correct to say that’s the law the lawyers you pay will have to cite to defend your company in a suit? Which a big corporation we would hope would treat as a cost of doing business, of course.
Imagine some businesses are ignorant of the law and some are super paranoid about even baseless litigation.
Idk how widespread it is but I’ve volunteered with organizations that get massive shipments of unsold food that’s then repackaged by them and then given out or sold at a substantially lower cost, so this does happen. This is backed by federal laws limiting the liability of donors, and at least in my state there are also laws limiting food waste to incentivize participation in such programs.
Make it easy for the corpos. Criminalize destroyed food. The financial disincentive needs to be very punitive like some percentage revenue first offense. Then jail time for execs and boards. Those companies may need to hire community coordinators to deal with the near expiring foodstuffs to avoid the criminal liability. Capitalists might assume people would stop buying food and just wait for it all to be near expiring, but the reality is, those with means will take the convenience of a purchase over a long, uncertain wait, potentially queuing hours or even the night before the food banks would open. It might depress prices as they get desperate to trade some of the remaining margin before being required to give it away. Oh no, what will we do if the rich people are slightly less rich!
Do you think industrial safety standards that companies spend tonnes of money on maintaining every year just popped out of thin air or the good will of companies?
Hell no. The mega-corps at least would be chucking children into factory machines 7 days a week like back in to early 20th century if they thought they could get away with it.
If you want companies to do something they’re otherwise not incentivised to do, you regulate it into existence. Force their hands just like Governments did in the past, and have now become increasingly less willing to do because of blatant corruption.
The easiest path in my mind is a one-two combo…
Firstly you give minimal liability to the food donor, so as long as they made a good faith effort to check the food wasn’t bad before handing it over you can’t be sued (I.e. if you’re giving a batch of cans, you’d check them for defects like bloating or cracks/dents).
Secondly, you create criminal liability for throwing away non-defective shelf stable foods (such as dried, canned and/or jarred foods) for companies over a certain size (to prevent from screwing over small businesses that may not have the logistics to ensure consistent donations).
Those two things create a pathway by which donations can be made with minimal risk, and disincentivise the route of least resistance (aka. Throwing it all away).
Unsold food that is given away creates a liability if it causes problems. Food banks are the middle man in that respect, where they can toss things that aren’t going to stay good and provide for people with the rest. So here’s where government, regulation, and socialism comes into play. Companies should be encouraged with money to do something other than toss that food. Better systems should be in place to move that food to the food bank. Better regulation there to make sure that the food is being examined well enough. More places for all this to happen.
This ignores fixing the real problem, profit driven consumption, societies where people aren’t able to provide for themselves, etc.
So by itself you aren’t going to get unsold food to the needy, the risk and cost is too great for companies.
Actually, this is completely false for US based companies.
They limited liability in 96
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Emerson_Good_Samaritan_Act_of_1996
Correct to say that’s the law the lawyers you pay will have to cite to defend your company in a suit? Which a big corporation we would hope would treat as a cost of doing business, of course.
Imagine some businesses are ignorant of the law and some are super paranoid about even baseless litigation.
Idk how widespread it is but I’ve volunteered with organizations that get massive shipments of unsold food that’s then repackaged by them and then given out or sold at a substantially lower cost, so this does happen. This is backed by federal laws limiting the liability of donors, and at least in my state there are also laws limiting food waste to incentivize participation in such programs.
Make it easy for the corpos. Criminalize destroyed food. The financial disincentive needs to be very punitive like some percentage revenue first offense. Then jail time for execs and boards. Those companies may need to hire community coordinators to deal with the near expiring foodstuffs to avoid the criminal liability. Capitalists might assume people would stop buying food and just wait for it all to be near expiring, but the reality is, those with means will take the convenience of a purchase over a long, uncertain wait, potentially queuing hours or even the night before the food banks would open. It might depress prices as they get desperate to trade some of the remaining margin before being required to give it away. Oh no, what will we do if the rich people are slightly less rich!
Do you think industrial safety standards that companies spend tonnes of money on maintaining every year just popped out of thin air or the good will of companies?
Hell no. The mega-corps at least would be chucking children into factory machines 7 days a week like back in to early 20th century if they thought they could get away with it.
If you want companies to do something they’re otherwise not incentivised to do, you regulate it into existence. Force their hands just like Governments did in the past, and have now become increasingly less willing to do because of blatant corruption.
The easiest path in my mind is a one-two combo…
Firstly you give minimal liability to the food donor, so as long as they made a good faith effort to check the food wasn’t bad before handing it over you can’t be sued (I.e. if you’re giving a batch of cans, you’d check them for defects like bloating or cracks/dents).
Secondly, you create criminal liability for throwing away non-defective shelf stable foods (such as dried, canned and/or jarred foods) for companies over a certain size (to prevent from screwing over small businesses that may not have the logistics to ensure consistent donations).
Those two things create a pathway by which donations can be made with minimal risk, and disincentivise the route of least resistance (aka. Throwing it all away).