surely there's protocols to get around 'what if people who could pay for donuts are eating the donuts instead of homeless'. Getting a food bank/charity volunteer to pick up the food- there's ways around this.
It's just assholes being protective over resources
Besides this is a decision of the state. In Germany you can give away food and are not liable (as long as it isn't meat or such which isn't good to eat, and as long as for milk produce the chain of keeping it cold wasn't broken). Still containering is illegal and it is legal to destroy your food at the end of the day.
In France it is now mandatory (as far as I read up on it) to give away good food at the end of the day - and you are not liable within similar patterns as the ones mentioned above.
That said, most Dunkin products are easily able to be eaten later. Esp. if it is the same day.
The reason many pastries and bread are overproduced by a ratio of 1-2x what is sold is that humans don't like buying food off empty shelves.
When I worked as a pastry chef's apprentice we would bin about equal bread, muffins, croissants to what we sold every day. When we made just what was theoretically needed we would only sell about 60-70% of normal. Trust me, the owner tried everything before that place became a Starbucks.
that is the trope, but really the people who would accept food in this fashion do not have the means to fight a huge company in court if a day old donut made them sick. The day old donut is still "private property" even though its been thrown away and no company ever is going to set any kind of precedent that would eventually realizes as "food shouldnt be for profit"
http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawnotes/2013/08/08/the-legal-guide-to-the-bill-emerson-good-samaritan-food-donation-act/ here's the law that prevents them from being liable. But more importantly they were planning on selling that food so wtf?
Is this related to that 'if we give food to homeless they're legally liable for any sicknesses?' or is that now a misnomer?
https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/partners/become-a-product-partner/food-partners
It's only applicable to food donated to non profits, though.
But that narrative is still bullshit.
If excess wasn't destroyed, the value of the goods being sold would go down because their scarcity would go down.
surely there's protocols to get around 'what if people who could pay for donuts are eating the donuts instead of homeless'. Getting a food bank/charity volunteer to pick up the food- there's ways around this.
It's just assholes being protective over resources
America is famously not full of parasitic NGOs that exploit loopholes
Yeah I think that's been debunked, something like as long as you were doing it with goodwill it's fine or something like that.
Besides this is a decision of the state. In Germany you can give away food and are not liable (as long as it isn't meat or such which isn't good to eat, and as long as for milk produce the chain of keeping it cold wasn't broken). Still containering is illegal and it is legal to destroy your food at the end of the day.
In France it is now mandatory (as far as I read up on it) to give away good food at the end of the day - and you are not liable within similar patterns as the ones mentioned above.
That said, most Dunkin products are easily able to be eaten later. Esp. if it is the same day.
The reason many pastries and bread are overproduced by a ratio of 1-2x what is sold is that humans don't like buying food off empty shelves.
When I worked as a pastry chef's apprentice we would bin about equal bread, muffins, croissants to what we sold every day. When we made just what was theoretically needed we would only sell about 60-70% of normal. Trust me, the owner tried everything before that place became a Starbucks.
This sounds true and reasonable but is also incredibly perverse at the same time.
Seems like it would be less wasteful to build smaller shelves
Stores experiment with that too. The depth on shelves for speciality items is usually less than other aisles.
Folks still buy more fresh goods though when there is a lot of them. No one is angling to buy the last head of lettuce.
That's really interesting. I hate capitalism
Besides - as if corps/capitalism would care about sick unhoused comrades.
that is the trope, but really the people who would accept food in this fashion do not have the means to fight a huge company in court if a day old donut made them sick. The day old donut is still "private property" even though its been thrown away and no company ever is going to set any kind of precedent that would eventually realizes as "food shouldnt be for profit"
http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawnotes/2013/08/08/the-legal-guide-to-the-bill-emerson-good-samaritan-food-donation-act/ here's the law that prevents them from being liable. But more importantly they were planning on selling that food so wtf?