It isn’t though. Some already donate non-perishables they don’t sell to community food banks for the tax write-off. Running it yourself would just be an extension of that and would be a huge PR plus. I think if we made food donations equivalent to being able to write it off as an inventory loss they would be more likely to do it.
Afaik the reason they refuse to give away food in power outages is precisely that. If they have to trash it then it is a total loss and they can write it off at cost, if they donate it then only a portion of the value is counted.
I am not a lawyer, yadda yadda, but best before dates are only the manufacturer saying “this will taste like advertised up until this date”. It’s still perfectly fine to eat, usually for a good while. So I think you’d be fine if you just sufficiently made people aware that the best by date has passed, and that they should use common sense before consuming.
It’s probably a different story for things with an actual expiration date
I worked produce in a supermarket for a little while. Our expired food was sent out to be used as animal feed. Not as good as charity but still a fine use for expired food.
Counter thought: food banks shouldnt be necessary because society should protect its weakest from starvation in an orderly manner and not by volunteer work and donations.
I always wondered about this after an experiment we did in school many many years ago where we were asked how far back we had to go to be able to prevent society’s current problems, everything from poverty to class warfare to polarized politics. It always seemed to boil down to an overpopulation problem. Granted, it was just a school experiment, but basically Thanos was right since you can’t really double resources but you can have too many people.
I always am wary of a solution to every problem or a cause behind all effects because I don’t see it ever being the case. Civilization is emergent not intentional, it would be shocking if it didn’t she problems.
Every grocery store running a food bank and distributing food to the hungry is equally unrealistic. If we’re throwing out absurd solutions to horrifying problems, it would be better to address the root cause rather than the symptoms.
Having proper social care is not part of a perfect world. it is also quite easily achievable. The US is deliberately starving its poor and adressinf this as the main issue is more effective than creating laws to regularize food banks.
The people I have helped with at food banks were not at risk of literal starving they were at risk of eating the same 3 things all the time. Most of us take it for granted having a mind that works like this. Go buy ingredients and follow a recipe, try new ones, some diversity in diet. Instead of just buying endless jars of peanutbutter and crackers.
My local one is working on more mealkit type solutions. Here is everything you need and a paper recipe.
Kinda makes me sad. More food stamp money is probably not going to fix that problem, not sure what can be done. Maybe social workers setting up basic cooking classes?
What do you think they do with all that stuff? They don’t toss it out, that’s stupid. You know how expensive it is to pay for a garbage truck to come pick up the trash compactor dumpsters they have and replace it with another? Why pay to throw stuff out when they can get tax credit for donating that stuff.
This is why I feel good churches need to be supported as they are normally the ones bankrolling this kind of thing, anything that human being requires to survive should be provided free of charge in my opinion. The fact that we still want to make a buck off of human suffering is a failure of humanity as a species
I keep trying to tell people that a post scarcity Society is not this ridiculous utopian fiction, it could be the reality today, no exaggeration, if billionaires not apply the logic that their power means nothing if they can’t abuse people
I’m a member of a church that runs a large food pantry. Even with lots of donations, grants, and steeply discounted food, it still takes a lot of money, resources, and manpower (volunteers) to make it happen. Our client count is at an all time high and steadily growing. A food pantry is not a “business” you really want to see grow but I’m glad it’s there for people who need it.
Churches in concept are amazing. They are a place for people to gather and learn about morals and ethics and such, to bond with the community. And then there is(maybe) free food after service where you can eat and chat with other people.
And the other services they can provide, like food banking, homeless help, counseling, community space, being a safe space, a refuge with resources. I’m glad there are some institutions doing it. I hope they are the snowball that triggers the avalanche, but so many churches are money vacuums draining their communities :(
I would love to see more churches climb to the top and better their commuities. I choose to be hopeful. One step at a time :)
What did I fail to understand? I said some churches are doing the work of charity and that I hope the many churches that don’t (the griffs) will follow the example.
On the contrary; that’s part of the problem. Receiving charity should not be conditioned upon – or even perceived to be conditioned upon – allowing oneself to be exposed to religious proselytizing. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Government shirking its responsibility to provide for the general welfare and thus encouraging religious institutions to take up that slack should be seen as a violation of the separation between church and state.
Actually if you took a look at how many of them are set up, the vast majority of them do not require you to attend church services. And are held at completely separate times service, typically only requireing some form of identification.
It’s still generally provided in a building festooned with religious iconography, and if you are inclined to be grateful for the help then your gratitude is directed towards a religious institution.
In other words, at the very least it makes the recipients more favorably inclined towards that religion than they would have otherwise been, had the charity been performed by an ideologically-neutral entity.
I feel like you’re just trying to come up with a reason why it’s bad because of religious institution is involved, instead of looking at what the institution is providing and judging it based on the quality of the service and how essential it is to impoverished communities.
So what if I am? The reason we have a separation between church and state in the first place is that it is entirely fair to assume that religion is an inherently corrupting influence.
That’s exactly what they do already for 99% of the food. Not everything is donatable, but the vast majority of it is. They get tax relief back, so they have financially incentive to do so.
99%? Is there any data to back that up? I see incredible amounts of waste just where I am. I can’t imagine a number even close to 99 is true.
It depends on who you poll as well. If you only talk to stores that do it and ignore the ones that don’t, your averages are going to be misinformed data skewed too high. I dunno.
99 is an unreasonable number so I don’t believe you.
I can tell you 99% is what I donated out of everything I got rid of. I donated well over $1k+ a day, it was a big store. Rest went to pig farms or whatever it went lol. Believe what you want to believe, just remember you don’t really have any contrary evidence either, and obviously I’m giving anecdotal evidence.
I worked at a grocery store as a supervisor for a few years and 80% of food was thrown away rather than donated. They still donated a fair bit of food to the local food bank weekly, but the vast majority just got thrown out. Anecdotal obviously.
I imagine it depends from store to store. But if anything that’s probably why we should have some kind of requirement and fines for not donating rather than an incentive to donate.
This is how our local food bank does it. When you give money to them, you’re not actually buying groceries. You’re paying for trucks, gasoline and drivers who go to the various grocery’s’ warehouses, who take what is nearing “throw out” and make it available for people.
This is why I laugh whenever a local grocery store has a “hunger food drive“ - there, you are literally just buying groceries for other people. Whereas our food bank prides itself on being able to feed people for $.20 a meal - it’s a huge force multiplier.
Mine wants food but they want food on their list. Yes I have volunteered and donated to them. And yes I am aware that they are the exception not the norm.
Walmart does this as long as it’s still generally safe. There are so many laws about refrigeration, tho, that is why so much gets thrown out. A refrigerated product has been out of the fridge for 30+ minutes? It’s not safe to sell or consume, according to the government. According to my stomach, it’s just fine as long as it hasn’t been days out of the refrigerator.
Oh I understand capitalism. I want to break it down. This can be one of the steps. I will totally discuss your views of you want. The government can eat a rock.
So putting myself into an asshole NIMBY's shoes: I bet a lot of people don't want to admit that they would prefer not to rub shoulders with people who needed foodbanks. And that is likely a major reason why a store wouldn't do this.
Also you'd need to staff it and if the food is free, that's an expense. Also the store space could be used for other merchandise so you're paying for a bigger footprint and to light, heat, cool, and clean it. I've been to some food banks and rarely are they in nice modern buildings.
I agree that it should happen instead of food being wasted. Those are just the reasons it wouldn't happen in a commercial store. I think a better idea would be to strictly regulate what food is allowed to be thrown out vs mandatory donating with huge fines for intentional contamination or waste.
If you talk to people about homelessness, they will readily admit they just don't want to see it. If go to any cheaper grocery store you definitely are rubbing shoulders with people who use foodbanks. Food insecurity doesn't go away just because you have a roof over your head.
The rub is a foodbank in a grocery store will attract the more visible "unreliable access to showers" type of user, which would be unacceptable.
I get that, but then those “undesirsbles” can be directed to help. At first yea, lots of grimy people could show up. With time as those people get help, you’ll see less and less. Change takes time. This change would be like removing a dam. A crazy surge of water, but then it calms to be the beautiful river it can be :)
but then those “undesirsbles” can be directed to help.
You think the reason they are undesirable is because they need help? They WANT to be undesirable. They reject society and choose to make bad decisions. You can’t help people like that.
The people who utilize food banks are not the addicted population you are most likely imagining. It’s everyday people who have a home, but not enough money left over for adequate sustenance.
Also, go volunteer at a soup kitchen wherever you live. You’ll see a lot more people who look closer to you than to the people you are describing, I guarantee it.
There will always be the exception of course, but most people who need and will use food banks are not parading themselves out on the streets flaunting their homelessness.
That’s a whole lot of assumptions based on… not much, I suppose? Last I checked, most people using food banks are on disability, social security, single parents, or just low-income people.
You can’t help people if you don’t inform yourself before forming an opinion either.
One benefit of colocating the food bank with the grocery store is that shoppers could make direct contributions to the food bank. Instead of those questionable ‘donate $1 to such and such’ prompts at payment, one could purchase an extra can of food and discreetly drop it off after checkout. Seeing the beneficiaries in person is confidence the grocery store isn’t just making a money grab.
Since most of us have to buy groceries, it would also provide shoppers a convenient opportunity to practice compassion. Sometimes a bad day can be turned around by doing something good.
I pick up food for two families at a food bank every week. There are pretty much the same people there every week (it’s a weekly pop up instance in a church parking lot). There are like, two homeless people out of about two hundred people. They are 99% young Latino families. They are the working poor. Homeless people don’t really have a way to manage 5 pounds of carrots, 5 cauliflowers, a box of pasta, a dozen eggs and a big frozen chicken.
Homeless people go to the soup kitchens for hot prepared meals.
NIMBY away. Those are all great reasons. They all revolve around the store keeping its money though. The point is that they use their money to help their community and not their golden horde.
Change makes people angry, but time softens the view and people will adapt.
Putting my NIMBY hat on as well to add. There’s another component that if people realize they can get their groceries for free at their local store, why would they go to the side that asks you to pay? Obviously this would be a net positive as more people in need will have access, but there will be some not-in-need who will take advantage. Grocery stores tend to have thin margins, so this may make a formerly profitable store unprofitable, which may reduce quality or shutter stores.
The same reason why most people don’t go to homeless shelters to get a bowl of free soup. Most of us understand that free food is for people who need free food.
Putting hypothetical profits before human needs is a problem. I’m not saying you don’t have an argument. Just commenting that that is what is being said.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is no way this “could work” because it is a fundamentally bad idea.
A food bank is not just a cart full of loaves of bread. It involves people who know how to engage with various government programs and how to tell people how to engage with it. And, the good ones, involve people who know how to help the people who need to use said food bank.
Like I said above: the issue is not the food. It is the counties. It is getting people to allow a food bank to even exist in their county. And you can 100% bet that if it is such a struggle to allow one to be opened that they will not be cool with The Poors “shopping” in the same supermarket they do.
The issue is that you are approaching this from a REALLY shitty direction. Because the vast majority of the people losing their god damned minds over supermarkets dumping excess food? it isn’t the needy. It is college kids who decided they want to dumpster dive because that will let them save money on food to spend on weed. Because yes, supermarkets waste a LOT of food. But if you actually look into this at all from a “helping the needy” perspective, the issue isn’t the amount of food wasted (which generally isn’t actually THAT much because supermarkets would rather sell food than dump it) and more the distribution to the needy and actually having a food bank/shelter/soup kitchen in a given county/area. And distribution to the needy is almost universally stopped by NIMBYs
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).
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…
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).
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?
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the work you do in a difficult field. But honestly I think you’re overly optimistic about a potential business case for this idea.
I apologize this is likely gonna be long.
Loss leaders are designed to pay for themselves over an average of other items bought so the store is never actually losing money. Some fast food places do this with food vs drinks. The cost to them for a drink is a few cents but they charge a couple dollars. That’s a 200%+ return in profit on the drinks which covers the cost of the drink and the margin of loss on the food plus some. Ketchup isn’t gonna do that. Things people might buy to supplement aren’t gonna do that. (If we were talking about lowering the cost of potatoes to get people to buy ketchup and condiments for them? maybe?) Labor is a huge expense, people cost more than their salary (401k, benefits, etc.) If someone makes $20K a company likely calculates their cost at $40K. So three full time employees to work the counter, work in back, etc is like $120,000 a year (assuming full time employees at $10 an hour) just in labor costs for 1 store. You would also need regional managers, lawyers, etc to run the program and they cost a lot more, plus the regionals travel expenses etc. Loss leaders at a grocery store isn’t gonna even dent that cost. Add to that the overhead for the building, storage, upkeep of the space. They might make some of it back on tax write-offs but why do all that when I can give $.25 off the profit on a can of beans to charity and write that off without the additional liability/cost of a food bank? I can give cash, write it off, and use it in my ads to appear less capitalist greedy oversteer. When I can use the space a food bank would take up to sell overpriced sugar? That’s lost opportunity cost on that floor space and that could cost $100,000+ a year depending on how much space the food bank would require. Per store. That’s millions a year for sure to get back? Not much from the companies perspective.
A charity branch? No. Food banks that they run out of every store? Yes. From a business perspective it doesn’t make any sense at all, that’s why you’ve never seen one even at more “progressive” grocery stores. A charity branch will make cash donations, set up “sales for charity” schemes, and do what some people have already commented and donate the food to local charities. All for that sweet sweet tax write off money. The logistics of that transfer with meat plus the additional liability is why you’re unlikely to see them donate it even if the food bank has a fridge. The issue is with getting it from the store to the food bank.
You’re getting a lot of pushback from people in this thread because your stance that a grocer would do this voluntarily is, in a business sense, wildly optimistic and bordering on absurd. The only real path I see towards this idea (which I do think is an ideal that’s worth striving towards) is if the government mandated it. The issue there (in the US, I’m US based and understand that system best) is that it would likely have to be a state mandate, and while some states (CA) might be open to it, others (TX) likely won’t. You could try to force it through from a federal funding directive like they did with highway money and the drinking age being standard (drinking age is set by the state, they’ve just all been bribed by the feds to make it 21). But you’d get a lot of pushback from companies who would be losing millions+ every year on the requirement and we all know the outsized impact companies have on our money grubbing politicians.
So while I like you’re idea in principle I don’t think it’s realistic at all since youre wanting companies to do it voluntarily. It might be possible to force them to do it involuntarily but it would be a bitter, bloody fight and the populace would need to want it overwhelmingly which I don’t think would be the case. You’d have my vote in favor for what it’s worth.
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.
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.
Expired food is not perfectly fine, only a demented fool would consider giving it to already weakened people or somebody who could not deal with the consequences of food intoxication
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Those best by dates are a lie. They only are there to encourage throwing out good food and buying more. It’s a planned obsolescence.
The printed expiration date is not quite an exact time when the food is actually expired. I’m sure most people have the sense to tell if a free gallon of milk is good or not a week after the printed expiration date.
It’s not like food products immediately expire on midnight of a printed date. Free food is free food yo. Some can last way longer than the printed date if stored properly.
And even if a loaf of bread is marginally starting to go stale doesn’t mean much of shit, as long as it ain’t gone outright moldy people will gladly eat it.
And BTW, that tends to be the nature of the food that donation centers give away anyways, food that’s just past the expiration date.
Man, we have a local gas station that’ll throw away 30 or more fresh cooked bacon/sausage egg and cheese biscuits at 10:10am, just because breakfast ended at 10am.
They refuse to sell them after exactly 10am, they refuse to give them away, and they throw them all out into a locked dumpster.
As if the food somehow rotted away at exactly 10am, hell it was still hot! Wasted food my dude, because of laws and an arbitrary set time.
I’m with you as far as “humans deserve food that won’t make ‘em sick, regardless of circumstances” but expired food can often still be fine - you just are outside of the manufacturer’s guarantee that it should still be good.
When I gotta choose between “expired food” and “nothing”, I choose to give expired food the visual + sniff + small taste test before consuming.
You also need to think about the kind of food qe’re talking about. Milk has a date after which the product my start to turn and curdle. Dried pasta has a date after which… the quality might suffer a little? Fruit goes mushy and baked goods mold. The dates put on these items are designed to limit liability of the company(s) providing them. You don’t put 4 weeks on a bottle of milk thinking it will turn at 4 weeks and 1 day, you put 3 weeks on it knowing that it gives you leeway, not only for time, but also quality of storage. If you buy a bottle of milk but it takes a couple hours to get it back into refrigeration, of course it will affect the life span. And no one is talking about giving away bloated canned goods. Dented cans are most often sent back to the warehouse, especially if the dent is on a rim or seal.
Add comment