MSE Blog: Supermarkets in the UK should be made to donate leftover food

stephen77

VfM4meplse wrote: »

But they are fit for consumption, as anyone who has ever bought anything YS and then stored it beyond its shelf life before eating will attest to (especially me).

It's a question of not being able to guarantee the safety and risk of legal action that is the issue.

Most of the time, most things can be eaten past there use by date with no issues, dependant on the food.

However when your serving billions of portions a year. You only need 0.0001% people to get ill, to cause a big issue.

Especially for e.g. elderly and infirm who's immune system may be weaker.

stephen77

zygurat789 wrote: »

No problem for one night then

No refrigeration on a hot summer evening for 1 night at the end of the products life when bacteria levels will already be rising?

People will get ill, especially if weakened immune system etc.

ben_m_g

Agree with a lot of what is posted, especially as I have (on more than one occasion) made stores aware of food that has visible mould on food still on the shelf.

Although I wonder if charities could meet them in the middle. Collect items and make a call on them?

stephen77

ben_m_g wrote: »

Agree with a lot of what is posted, especially as I have (on more than one occasion) made stores aware of food that has visible mould on food still on the shelf.

Although I wonder if charities could meet them in the middle. Collect items and make a call on them?

Products have specs. By extending the life you are breaking the spec.
Would take a solicitor 10 minutes to find out the charity has been negligent if they did not follow the rules.

Some products will show visible moulds and yeasts. Other products will not show any visible signs of being potentially dangerous.

All major super market own brands products will have been sent off for shelf life verification. Extending this would mean more testing (and you may not get a pass).

dlusman

A lot of the comments above relate purely to "use-by" products. The OP is about "best-before"

Sharon87

Best Before products should be given away, most used by products should probably be binned. You'd never give away things like prawns or chicken, but eggs on the other hand are fine for a couple weeks after their supposed 'used by' date. Other items like crisps, tinned goods can be eaten well after the 'best before' date, so why not give them to the homeless charities.

All that needs to happen is for the charity to sign a waiver saying they are responsible and to inform the people eating it that it is past the use by/best before date, so they know the risk before eating it.

geordie_joe

Sharon87 wrote: »

Other items like crisps, tinned goods can be eaten well after the 'best before' date, so why not give them to the homeless charities.

Because they can still sell it.

Sharon87 wrote: »

All that needs to happen is for the charity to sign a waiver saying they are responsible and to inform the people eating it that it is past the use by/best before date, so they know the risk before eating it.

I don't think it would be that simple. The people who the charities will give it to wil be homeless people or people with not enough money to buy food. These people will be far more prone to "taking a chance" on dodgy food. As such they should be given more protection not less.

Just look at the stick the betting shops get for having gaming machines easily accessible to those who really shouldn't be gambling. Or the stick supermarkets get for selling cheap boose.

You've all seen those charity adverts about little kids having to drink dirty water because it's all they have. Well soon you'll see the same adverts with kids in this country.

There will be a little kid walking down a british street carrying an out of date packet of fish fingers. With the commentator saying "Little Bobby has to eat out of date fish fingers, which may contain enough bacteria to kill him, because it's all he has. Please give whatever you can, so we can give little Bobby safe, in-date food......No child should be born to die".