What on earth are you talking about. sodium tripolyphosphate is a preservative, it reduces waste. I’d rather waste more and not have that in my food.
Costs -
Resources used to produce the food, such as scarce Californian water, fertilizers, etc.
The greenhouse gases associated with the production and transportation of the food.
The methane in particular produced as the wasted food rots in landfills.
It’s one thing that eight ounces of hamburger results in as much greenhouse gas as driving an average sized car 10 miles … it’s another thing when it wasn’t even eaten.
Moderator Action
This is more speculation and opinion than factual.
Moving thread from General Questions to In My Humble Opinion.
We do this:
http://goo.gl/qwthkr
then throw the wasted food at them
Not actually the case.
First off food is an international industry. Each year the United States exports about about $136 billion dollars of food (big three being soybeans, meat, and wheat), and imports about $115 billion (fish, fruit and vegetables leading the list) out of a total budget of about $450 billion. Meat (inclusive of beef, pork, and poultry) is by far the biggest dollar value produced, followed by grains … all of which have large export markets which would fill the gap even if the price went down marginally. A bit less might be imported as well but also would be eaten elsewhere … food is more fungible than you may think.
There is a great amount of food wasted in the developing world as well.
I believe there are concerns of it being used as an adulterant in seafoods (in conjunction with water, it can significantly ‘plump’ the food, increasing the weight).
I own a store that specializes in buying and selling food past the best by date. And in my state I am able to sell anything (except eggs) past the sell by date.
For people that understand that food goes bad when it goes bad rather than what the date on the box is, they save an absurd amount of money.
My store is known for its $0.20 king size candy bars and $0.50 bottled soda.
But to answer your question, yes a lot of food is thrown away that shouldn’t be, but i think it’s more of an ignorance coupled with corporate greed that dates exist and food is thrown.
That also reduces waste. I don’t want the stuff in my food but not using it will increase waste and not the other way round.
I remember that story, but I’d like to repeat the question I asked, but was never answered: would you advocate some kind of tort reform or legal shield to keep someone from suing stores “doing a good deed” in this kind of situation?
Perhaps it’d be different if we had universal health care, but then, maybe not, with “pain and suffering” as a part of civil judgments.
Where are these homeless vagrants finding these civil lawyers to file suit for them for free exactly?
I keep seeing this canard presented as an excuse in the USA, oh no we could be sued!
So I present a challenge, pose as a homeless person and call up some lawyers and tell them about how you got food poisoning from a donated chicken and see how many takers you get for your case on commission.
Remember also that civil awards involve documented pain and suffering and loss of potential income, how much do you think that adds up to?
You know what forget the homeless angle, call up civil lawyers saying you got food poisoning from a free sample at a grocery.
I dunno, ask Senegoid, unless your thought is that the supermarket person who told him/her that was just lying.
Why the hell would I eat a half-rotten orange or expired canned food? It’s not like by doing so, I’ll reduce the hunger of someone else.
Because the expired canned food is perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it and it isn’t spoiled.
I was trying to say no tort reform is needed, a case like that would go nowhere.
I get the idea people just use the “could be sued” as a way to shut down the questioning or when they don’t have a good answer. Frazzled employee tells a customer that as a reason when they don’t know the real one, management tells employees that etc.
Yes, in fact it is a enormous problem, and the unreliable electricity (often from the false politics of ‘pro poor’ pricing of the elecricity or the populism that allows theft of the electricity from the state companies - it leads in the end to the reliance on the expensive individual generator, a false policy in the end) and the unreliable or the poor roads that make transport damaging to the produce - both directly and from the bad storage conditions.
The obsession of the left oriented development organisations with the ‘small holder farmer’ and their anti-modernization and anti-markets orientations hurts better government and development policies, blinded by romanticisms (it comes out in this the Guardian article which manages to imply that it is the fault of the large and the efficient companies and not the fault of the badly thought out anti-market policies of the left oriented anti-market parties and the ngos insultated from any market development and more concerned with the romanticism of the photogenic poor for their fund raising…)
famines yes this is usually but not always true.
but it is not political alone that is a problem for the poor rural populations that live in the food scarcity conditions, at least not in the sense of the warlords statement. It is also a problem of the poor infrastructures as the article linked by Dseid shows (in speaking of the India).
I have wondered about that too. Costco recycles at least some of their unsold barbcue chicken as chicken salad (delicious too, but in quantities too large for a household of 2). I guess the markets could cool them (or even freeze them) and sell them at half price the next day. I guess they fear it might interfere with their sale of the fresh product. Marketing. I am sure the homeless shelters would welcome them.
There are food banks that assume the liability of distributing discarded food from grocery stores. It is a real thing, all you need is the headline “Homeless dies from tainted food provided by grocery store”. In addition the groceries can be fined or shut down by the local health department if their food makes someone ill. I know someone in the prepared food business and he won’t sell the tons of fruit rinds he disposes of for animal feed to avoid regulation. There are real liability concerns and the food banks also end up throwing away a lot of the donations for the same reason.
I still don’t see the problem here. This so called waste is a byproduct of an ample and inexpensive food supply. Because we have so many ways to preserve food we probably waste less now than in times past. Farmer’s have always had to overproduce if they could and take their chances on selling their excess.
The problem here is several fold.
First there is the issue that some of the costs are not paid directly by the producer or the consumer but passed on to the world as a whole - the costs of the greenhouse gases involved in the production, transportation, and rotting of food never consumed. Similar to gasoline - cheap at the pump does not mean that burning it wastefully is of little cost to the world, it just means that prices do not capture all the costs. The costs are felt globally and will impact most those in areas were food production is already below demand and where imports are unaffordable.
Second is that “cheap” to most Americans is still unaffordable for many in the world. Again, food is in fact a global, not a local market, and demand is increasing worldwide. For any given level of production in America less waste increases global supply closer to global demand because America would export more and import less. Food becomes affordable to some who currently cannot afford to not go hungry.
Lastly is the simple fact that the growing population of the world will over the next few decades be hard to feed unless we waste less. The U.N. estimates that by mid-century the world will need up 70% more calories.
It may be that from the POV of an American consumer with a typical American household income that the food supply is ample and inexpensive. Not so true for much of the rest of the world … and food supply is an interconnected resource.
Oh about the liability … widely believed but not actually the case. They are protected by law.
Just because a law says that doesn’t mean someone can’t sue. It’ll be up to the store to prove they did the donation on good faith in a legal setting, it isn’t just assumed.
Also, I read the law and it specifically points to persons, gleaners, and nonprofit organizations. It does not say anything about for-profit companies like grocery stories.