food waste petititon

one-non-blonde

One of my local supermarkets gives all of its surplus food at the end of the day to a food bank. Now, by the time the shop has closed and the food is handed over it can be after 10pm. It then has to be taken to their depot to be sorted, stored, etc. Most things can't be plonked straight into a freezer. So, by the time anyone in need (which is not just those that are homeless) gets their hands on any of the food it is past the use by date but more worryingly has also been out of refrigeration for much more than the recommended half hour. I'm free and easy with dates on food, happily consuming things waaaaaaay past the advisory dates but I do worry sometimes...

I don't know if there is some kind of contract in place that abrogates the store of any liability once the stock has been transferred but I do know that they're not allowed to sell it on.

antrobus

StacFace wrote: »

Because they don't want the hassle of defending themselves if a homeless person does become ill or the risk of them being held responsible if they can't prove it wasn't the cause.

As long as the issue is pointed out and it isn't clearly bad (ie lumpy milk or bread that's gone so moldy there'd be none left if you tried picking it all off) I don't see the problem with allowing them to have the choice.

So what are you saying? So long as the poor are given 'the choice' then it's perfectly all right if some of them become ill and die as a result? Do you have an acceptable death rate in mind?

Why treat the homeless and the needy any differently from anybody else? Why not simply repeal all food safety legislation, abolish the FSA, give all supermarkets and restaurants legal immunity from civil action, and let everybody make the same 'choice'.

StacFace wrote: »

...I don't think people or charities should be sued just for trying to help and

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

StacFace wrote: »

...
I don't like the idea of food that could have benefitted someone being thrown away.

I don't like the idea of food that could harm or kill someone from being eaten. And I don't see why anybody should be given legal immunity from the consequences of so doing.

Savvy_Sue

one-non-blonde wrote: »

One of my local supermarkets gives all of its surplus food at the end of the day to a food bank. Now, by the time the shop has closed and the food is handed over it can be after 10pm. It then has to be taken to their depot to be sorted, stored, etc. Most things can't be plonked straight into a freezer. So, by the time anyone in need (which is not just those that are homeless) gets their hands on any of the food it is past the use by date but more worryingly has also been out of refrigeration for much more than the recommended half hour.

And FareShare are very strict about that kind of thing. The food comes in a van with refrigeration facilities, the charities and groups receiving it have to have their kitchens inspected, keep daily records of fridge temperatures, there may be spot checks, they can't freeze food unless eg it's raw meat which they cook first, and so on.

StacFace

antrobus wrote: »

So what are you saying? So long as the poor are given 'the choice' then it's perfectly all right if some of them become ill and die as a result? Do you have an acceptable death rate in mind?

Why treat the homeless and the needy any differently from anybody else? Why not simply repeal all food safety legislation, abolish the FSA, give all supermarkets and restaurants legal immunity from civil action, and let everybody make the same 'choice'.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't like the idea of food that could harm or kill someone from being eaten. And I don't see why anybody should be given legal immunity from the consequences of so doing.

It's not a distinction between the homeless and 'anybody else', it's between giving stuff away for free and charging for it. If you're selling food as a business then of course you should have more legal responsibility than if you're giving it away for free. I'd be for supermarkets giving away that sort of food to non-homeless people too by just having the 'free bin' at the front or whatever but I can't see them doing it because they'd lose money from people just taking whatever they can get for free rather than spending money. I know I'd be in there all the time if they did!

Be realistic, if it's gone off enough to kill you then you'd figure that out without needing to eat it.

antrobus

StacFace wrote: »

It's not a distinction between the homeless and 'anybody else', it's between giving stuff away for free and charging for it. If you're selling food as a business then of course you should have more legal responsibility than if you're giving it away for free.

No, the exact same legal responsibility applies, because the harm you can cause is exactly the same.

In the same way as all motorists have the same legal responsibility irrespective of whether or not they're being paid for driving.

StacFace wrote: »

...Be realistic, if it's gone off enough to kill you then you'd figure that out without needing to eat it.

That's odd. There appear to be a number of people in the UK who, every year, fail to 'figure it out' and fall ill as a result of eating contaminated food. Some of them even die. Maybe it's not as easy to spot as you think it is.

StacFace

antrobus wrote: »

No, the exact same legal responsibility applies, because the harm you can cause is exactly the same.

In the same way as all motorists have the same legal responsibility irrespective of whether or not they're being paid for driving.

Food is a basic human need and giving it away for free is a very charitable act. Driving is normally neither and I wouldn't class giving someone a lift on the same level.

Ambulances are allowed to speed, even though it increases the chance of death if they crash. Sure if they were driving dangerously (poisoning food) I'd say they should be held liable but not if they were just speeding (giving out out-of-date food) to try and get the patient there quickly to increase their survival/recovery chances (to feed the homeless person and increase their chances of not dying of starvation).

What about the harm caused from people being discouraged from being charitable? If it's a choice between someone dying of starvation or having some potentially dodgy bread I know which I'd prefer and I'd like to think if I ever became homeless or in need of food charities I'd be given the choice.

That's odd. There appear to be a number of people in the UK who, every year, fail to 'figure it out' and fall ill as a result of eating contaminated food. Some of them even die. Maybe it's not as easy to spot as you think it is.

Do you have any links to news articles or anything on these? I've never heard of anyone dying after eating slightly out of date food. I also know many people who do it regularly including myself. The worst that's ever happened was that some chicken had gone a little off, you could tell it was going but it was still edible and it tasted fine to me with a bit of gravy. Felt a little unwell but no actual sickness and it lasted less than 24 hours. I'll try to remember to freeze chicken in future if I'm not going to eat it in the next few days but if I forgot I'd definitely do it again.

Not that I'd recommend giving food that far gone to others. I only did it because I see throwing away food as throwing away money.

Savvy_Sue

I'm going to say again, it's a little more complicated than that ...

Many groups working to provide food to those who need it know roughly how much they need - at least as a minimum. They can't just keep their fingers crossed and hope that they get enough: they have to plan ahead.

So, the supermarket offers loaves which are beyond their sell by date, groups says fantastic, collects them and starts using them, only to find that they are, in fact, not usable. Maybe the green mould has actually started - I know I've had that on bread which is still technically WITHIN date - and you can't check every single slice and pull off any little spots, because there just isn't TIME and there's a risk you might miss some. Whatever, there's now no bread.

And there's a group of hungry people who thought they were going to get sandwiches, only now they're not.

Or maybe half of them have had a sandwich, and the other half haven't ...

The people these groups are dealing with are not necessarily going to accept this happily. DH said he nearly had a riot on his hands when he had to tell those waiting for their 'cafe' to open that actually, it wasn't going to happen that night. There are also difficulties whenever there's any perceived 'unfairness'. That's why planning ahead is key - which they can do with FareShare!

I'll happily eat food after its use by date, and take the responsibility myself. But when I'm at work, we won't - we can't - serve such food to those who use our services.

It's not even the risk of being sued which would hold us back. StacFace, you were slightly sick after eating dodgy chicken. You presumably have a reasonably good immune system. Many of those who come to us don't. We don't want them to be unwell as a result of something WE have done. And we would be devastated if anyone died from food poisoning contracted from our kitchen - forget the risk of being sued, these are people we know and care for!

Savvy_Sue

BTW, I've been having a little bit of a google for food poisoning deaths UK, and it looks as if the consensus is that these have been underestimated. Not read the results, so won't post links. For a charity, even 'just' causing serious illness would be very hard to deal with.

antrobus

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

BTW, I've been having a little bit of a google for food poisoning deaths UK, and it looks as if the consensus is that these have been underestimated. Not read the results, so won't post links. For a charity, even 'just' causing serious illness would be very hard to deal with.

Yes, I think the 'official' figures for food poisoning deaths in the UK are something like 30-40 a year. The FSA thinks it is more;

There were 590 reported deaths in the UK in 2000 attributed to infectious intestinal disease (IID). It is likely that a significant proportion of these will have been due to food poisoning.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/faq/fhc2qanda/fhc1002q024#.UWu9r8okQmx

Plus there is research that suggests that there are long term consequences arising form food poisoning cases.

three times as many people suffering gastrointestinal infections died within a year of being infected compared with the healthy group.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-161045/Hidden-death-toll-food-poisoning.html

Not that any of this particularly matters of course. If the risk of death and or harm was zero then you wouldn't need any protection against being sued. The fact that you would want civil legal immunity before carrying out a particular action clearly indicates that you anticipate there is a risk of something bad happening which is uninsurable.

I must admit I still find it astonishing that there are people who believe that the poor should be denied their legal rights simply because they have accepted charity.

StacFace

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

StacFace, you were slightly sick after eating dodgy chicken. You presumably have a reasonably good immune system. Many of those who come to us don't. We don't want them to be unwell as a result of something WE have done. And we would be devastated if anyone died from food poisoning contracted from our kitchen - forget the risk of being sued, these are people we know and care for!

Yeah of course I'm not suggesting you give out something that far gone and did say at the end "not that I'd recommend giving food that far gone to others". It was just to illustrate that if the food actually does look, smell and taste fine a day or so after it goes "out of date" then it's not going to harm you, because even food you can tell is dodgy doesn't do that much.

My immune system really isn't that good though, I'm always the first to catch anything that goes round. Even now I've still got a minor bug my sister had for a couple of days which I've had since the end of March and it's a running joke in the family that I never don't have a cold.