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. Stale Oreos are better than no cookies at all. Companies want you to be able to buy a product and expect consistent quality.
Comment on Grocery stores should have food banks
LimitedDuck@septic.win 9 months 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?
altima_neo@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
Agree 100%
Not that it is expected to be content with stale oreos, but yea. Some is better than none :)
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 9 months ago
It also ignores the big issue of distribution.
A Kroger is not equipped to handle distribution of food to those in need. And I will 100% guarantee you that if they just leave the dumpsters unlocked, it will mostly be upper middle class college kids “dumpster diving” who grab the food… until one of them gets stabbed and the entire program is shut down forever.
I would like to see more effort to work with local charities and food banks to donate food but… a surprising number of supermarkets already do that. The issue is that there just aren’t enough food banks because NIMBYs kill them out of fear it will lead to “too many homeless people. and poors”. Which gets back to the issue of trying to get food to centralized locations which increase costs, cause issues with food that is fine if it is kept refrigerated, etc.
Like, for as massively fucked as it is to see an entire aisle of cereal get thrown into a bin and the latch locked, that is not “the problem”. The problem is that we as a society do everything we can to make life inhospitable for the less well off in the hopes that they die and go away.
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months 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 :)
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Retrofitting so many buildings and hiring out the staff, and training them, is just not viable. Or even a good idea. You might as well want all of them to have helicopter pads and hotels attached.
Food banks exist. There should be more of them. But they are a very different kind of building than a supermarket and you need a VERY different kind of staff to be able to actually help those who need it rather than wander off because you are getting paid minimum wage and its your smoke break.
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months 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’ :)
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
Also, distribution problem? The food is literally already there.
BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Just for clarity, when you say staff you mean like government employees? Or charity workers?
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months 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
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months 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.
neptune@dmv.social 9 months 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.
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
Capitalism is cancer :(
ByteWizard@lemm.ee 9 months 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?
Starglasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
I don’t understand your meaning of your comment. Not having capitalism means bare shelves in the future? How?
Sloth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months 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.