Instead of the perfectly-fine “expired” food going to the dumpster, feed people. Help the community.
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.
Give to your local area food bank.
I do exactly this for a job. Some stores give lots of good stuff, some treat us like a garbage company.
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.
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.
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?
“[Solution] shouldn’t exist because we should just have a perfect world instead.”
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.
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.
People were poorer when they were less of us.
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.
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 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.
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 :)
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.
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.
Ok? Then they won’t get help. Others will.
How Christian.
The thing is people don’t realize who needs food banks. They may not be aware their kids best friend, their coworker, etc. may be in need.
I rub shoulders with Food Bank people all the time on my commute and they aren’t the ones you worry about.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 is cancer :(
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?
I don’t understand your meaning of your comment. Not having capitalism means bare shelves in the future? How?
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.
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.
Agree 100%
Not that it is expected to be content with stale oreos, but yea. Some is better than none :)
Perfection of quality expectations ruins so many things way too fast.
Removed by mod
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 :)
Removed by mod
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’ :)
There isn’t much to retrofit. It could be like adding another pharmacy department counter.
Removed by mod
I hear your criticisms, but I also think you are not on the same page of understanding my idea as I am. It’s a shower thought anyways.
Also, distribution problem? The food is literally already there. Open something akin to the pharmacy counter area and a few staff could handle it.
Just for clarity, when you say staff you mean like government employees? Or charity workers?
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…
This is an idea to flesh out. There are so many barriers. When you discover a problem, try to also find a solution instead of tossing it in the trash.
(Loss leaders are a thing too)
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).
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
This is the law in France. They have to donate unsold food to foodbanks.
I don’t know how effective it is, but it’s much more civilized than throwing bleach on food.
Actually I work at Walmart and the expired food that’s still reasonable to eat we donate
Still a shit ton of edibles food ends up trashed tho Everything that we can’t freeze p much
I’m happy to hear your store does some donating. This is what we’re aiming for as a first step :)
Food should be a human right and be free
I agree. Necessities should be free.
In the UK some stores have pre packaged food at the entrance ready to be picked up for free. This is the food bank alternative.
It’s good food, not crap either.
I know Grocers in NJ already donate items to food banks. I just looked up a food bank not too far from me and they claim 25% of their food is donated from local grocery stores.
Great! Donating to established food banks is excellent as well. I hope to see more following the example.
In the US the expired food goes to charity
That’s an extreme claim. Not believable.
Second harvest is a charity that specializes in exactly this.
They pick up food from grocery stores and distribute it.
There are chapters of second harvest across north america
Expired food? There might be laws against stuff like that.
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
Maybe not the best name. Second harvest is also a term for eating shit!
Well its true here in Colorado at least. They get Tax breaks for donating to charity and it doesn’t need to be money
Really just depends on the store and where you are. Stores can get tax breaks for it.
The local Safeway offers it to charity, compost or livestock feed for the farms nearby. All you have to do is head inside and ask.
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.
So it was resold?
Donated. Resold in the sense that eventually they sell the animals after butchering.
In a perfect world maybe. We threw out a ton when I worked at 1 ~ 5 years ago.
I’m sure it depends on the store and region
Per capita the US wastes more food than any other country… I just made that up but sounds about right.
Ok, I guess? I think golf resorts should stop filling their swimming pools with insulin. That sounds about right.
Why would I buy food if it’s free?
I’m not sure you understand how capitalism works. Anywho, wanna be an anarcho-syndicalist with me?
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.
I think we got our wires crossed. Have a great day, Comrade!
Gotcha. Enjoy!
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.
Understood about food safety. Refridgeration is only a problem if there are no fridges, so get fridges for the food bank. Fixed!
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
It’s important to know that food insecurity is not a money problem. It’s a political one.
We have the funds, logistics, technology to solve food insecurity for everyone on the planet today. The reason we don’t is politics.
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
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.
It is not entirely fair to assume that, and in doing so we alienate our allies
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.
That’s basically what I’m saying, we should not need food banks, but it is good that they are there for those who need them.
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 :)
I think you failed to understand what churches do…
True Mega Churches tend to be nothing but griffs, but you should try the old school brick and mortar, pews made of wood, kind.
In fact religious groups in general typically are the ones getting the most done on charity work.
Edit: Wait, no you understood, I’m just weird
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.
My bad, maybe I failed to understand something… Sorry.
Quite late, but I personally like it when my apology is recognized, so I’m here to say no worries at all. We communicated and sorted it out 🤘
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.
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.
I like how we both supplied anecdotal evidence, but they’re agreeing with you more just because of the conclusion they want to come to
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.
