• rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    ·
    17 hours ago

    That’s the same sort of business owners who would throw away uneaten food in restaurants and not allow employees to take it home.

      • Aneb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The amount of perfectly OK cheesecake that looks barely damaged but can’t sell but can’t take home is very high. But my small town bakery, I can take the store home with me if there’s product leftover.

    • nullspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      16 hours ago

      That’s different because it’s a liability thing. Some asshole would sue over bad food which means nobody gets the food.

      • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s not a liability thing there’s laws to protect businesses donating food in good faith. They would literally just throw it away than give it away because how dare anyone get anything for free.

      • balsoft@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        They could donate the food to a food bank and be completely shielded from liability by Good Samaritan Act

        They don’t want to because it means that poor people can eat for free (gasp) which might slightly impact the restaurant industry and indirectly reduce their profit margin by 0.1%

        • nullspace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You are disregarding the storage and transportation of food that has a very limited shelf life along with requiring strict temperature control. It’s not as simple as tossing it all into a bag at the end of the night. It’s a significant logistical overhead.

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Looks like that act covers donations to places that aren’t going to be open at the end of the evening shift.

      • WizardOfFrobozz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Americans would rather chuck perfectly good food into a dumpster than entertain the possibility of summoning the collective fucking will to fix a VERY straightforward problem. The idea that they could just legislate some reasonable liability protections and make sure edible food gets to hungry people apparently requires a level of imagination and civic competence beyond anyone’s wildest dream. So much easier to blame “some asshole” for creating what is surely an insurmountable legal paradox. The food rots, needy people go hungry, and the US gets to pretend the problem is some unavoidable fact of life rather than admit they just couldn’t be arsed to try.

        • Arcadeep@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          No, actually, most Americans are not happy about it, but you probably don’t care about nuance and just want to throw a fit

        • Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Most stabilized countries have laws in place for food and protections for donations.

          I’m guessing there’s rules behind this one but in the US:

          The Food Donation Improvement Act: This act expands those protections. It allows qualified businesses (like restaurants, supermarkets, and schools) to donate food directly to individuals in need rather than having to route it through a registered 501©(3) nonprofit intermediary. It also allows nonprofits to charge a nominal “Good Samaritan” fee just to cover the logistics and handling costs of distributing the food.

          I don’t know the specifics of that one though.

          • left_is_best@feddit.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Easier & cheaper to just throw it away, so most businesses probably don’t bother. We would need to mandate and/or subsidize this behavior if we wanted people to actually do it.

              • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Does that include food left on the vine so it can fertilize the soil or just the stuff left on because it couldn’t sell

              • left_is_best@feddit.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Sure, but they have stuff to throw away other than food, too, so they’re paying for it regardless. Some places in the US make property owners pay for waste disposal separately, but even then it could be a flat fee so the business wouldn’t gain anything by throwing less stuff away. Some places just include it in property taxes, in which case, again, the business wouldn’t gain anything.

                  • left_is_best@feddit.online
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    8 hours ago

                    Collection is often on a schedule so it gets emptied regardless.

                    It may very well be the case that most American businesses pay by the pound, ton, or bin. I don’t know. I do know that in some cases it’s a fixed cost, up to the size of a bin within a certain time period, anyway.