They have to deal with less sales and or storing excess inventory.
Let's say you have some bruised bananas. You either have to keep them on the shelf till they rot (less space for sellable product) or donate them and then people won't buy as many bananas, so you need to raise the price.
Unfortunately, there is an issue with food pantries where people who are not in need use them because free food. People can be shameless. It is a minority but still too common and doesn't come with the stigma it deserves in some places. In Seattle, I've even heard a few anecdotes of people trying to resell food from the food pantries.
This behavior does impact prices in the normal market at the margin, particularly if it becomes normalized.
In UK there is an app called Too Good To Go where you can buy food for about one third of normal price when they are near expiry. As the name implies, there is no particular stigma about using it, you are helping to reduce food waste. It’s often some form of advertisement too
This is some truly bizarre logic. The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry for free since the company is saying it has no value if they are willing to throw it away. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this basic logic.
> The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry
This is incredibly disconnected from the problem. In the US most people in poverty receive food stamps and have preferences about what they like to eat. They want cosmic brownies with their breaded chicken, not your bruised banana.
Total of volume of edible material is a non-issue.
No, I have a accurate belief that food is one of the most fundamental and important resources for humans and the lack of it causes enormous suffering and long term harm.
Where do you think I should send my bruised bananas to be eaten?
The definition for the largest category is a subjective feeling of not being able to buy all food options you would buy.
The narrow categories which have better defined criteria also include anyone with any administrative dysfunction which limits their ability to plan or navigate serivces. Which is a real and different problem from having edible mass.
To put it another way, almost everything you need to do to survive as an adult in the US is harder than acquiring food. The problems you have in this category are a bottomless pit.
"Where do you think I should send my bruised bananas to be eaten?"
They should be on a shelf with a giant "FREE" sign. You act like it is so hard to give away food instead of throwing it in the dumpster. Well it isn't.
A third of the world's food goes to waste, but France is attempting to do something about it. Since 2016, large grocery stores in the country have been banned from throwing away unsold food that could be given away.
Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs.
Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.
While my sibling comment said it all, note that destroying them also costs money, hence if those can't be sold, it's a loss of profit already, lower the price and let people eat..
> higher costs.
Higher costs of what? Of those new fruits? Well, maybe wasting food should cost?
Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive.
> Well, maybe wasting food should cost?
Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.
> Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive.
But at least first lowering prices until they reach 0 seems cheaper?
> Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.
Because that's a vile thing to do when someone else wants to eat it, don't you think?
If people dont make money, then nobody grows the food or the store closes.
I also dont think hunger is a real problem in the US. Death from gluttony is far more common. For those who are hungry, there are already oppurtinities to get food. Putting more free food there doesnt help if they dont have access, or if they are a crackhead.
Because it costs money to store and distribute.
They have to deal with less sales and or storing excess inventory.
Let's say you have some bruised bananas. You either have to keep them on the shelf till they rot (less space for sellable product) or donate them and then people won't buy as many bananas, so you need to raise the price.
People eating donated bananas are not buying bananas if there are none available for free. They are just not eating bananas.
Unfortunately, there is an issue with food pantries where people who are not in need use them because free food. People can be shameless. It is a minority but still too common and doesn't come with the stigma it deserves in some places. In Seattle, I've even heard a few anecdotes of people trying to resell food from the food pantries.
This behavior does impact prices in the normal market at the margin, particularly if it becomes normalized.
In UK there is an app called Too Good To Go where you can buy food for about one third of normal price when they are near expiry. As the name implies, there is no particular stigma about using it, you are helping to reduce food waste. It’s often some form of advertisement too
Says who? Would you prefer free bananas or paying?
Supermarkets and stores throwing away edible food is pure waste and fundamentally immoral when people are going hungry.
Why? the two are generally unrelated. Lack of food isnt the bottleneck, there is no shortage. It is usually a host of complex problems.
Is throwing away water in a rainforest immoral when there are thristy people in a desert? The problem is connecting the two.
"the two are generally unrelated"
This is some truly bizarre logic. The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry for free since the company is saying it has no value if they are willing to throw it away. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this basic logic.
> The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry
This is incredibly disconnected from the problem. In the US most people in poverty receive food stamps and have preferences about what they like to eat. They want cosmic brownies with their breaded chicken, not your bruised banana.
Total of volume of edible material is a non-issue.
Who packs it up? Who finds the hungry? Who reviews their financial situation? Who delivers it?
Alternatively, do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it, and decide if they feel like paying today at the register?
"do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it"
YES, BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO THROW IT AWAY! You would prefer to see edible food being wasted instead of eaten? That is very weird.
You have some cultural beliefs about food being of special reverence which is not reflected in its utility and cost.
No, I have a accurate belief that food is one of the most fundamental and important resources for humans and the lack of it causes enormous suffering and long term harm.
Good thing options and supply are abundant!
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
13.7 percent (18.3 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2024.
8.3 percent (11.1 million) of U.S. households had low food security in 2024.
5.4 percent (7.2 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2024.
Where do you think I should send my bruised bananas to be eaten?
The definition for the largest category is a subjective feeling of not being able to buy all food options you would buy.
The narrow categories which have better defined criteria also include anyone with any administrative dysfunction which limits their ability to plan or navigate serivces. Which is a real and different problem from having edible mass.
To put it another way, almost everything you need to do to survive as an adult in the US is harder than acquiring food. The problems you have in this category are a bottomless pit.
"Where do you think I should send my bruised bananas to be eaten?"
They should be on a shelf with a giant "FREE" sign. You act like it is so hard to give away food instead of throwing it in the dumpster. Well it isn't.
Why would anyone ever pay at the store then instead of getting the free food? E.g. Just wait and it is all free.
I dont prefer to see food thrown away, but I also like having Markets and farmers with functional businesses.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is-frances-groundbreaking-...
A third of the world's food goes to waste, but France is attempting to do something about it. Since 2016, large grocery stores in the country have been banned from throwing away unsold food that could be given away.
Can they at least feed it to animals?
Or.. lower the price?
Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs. Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.
While my sibling comment said it all, note that destroying them also costs money, hence if those can't be sold, it's a loss of profit already, lower the price and let people eat..
> higher costs.
Higher costs of what? Of those new fruits? Well, maybe wasting food should cost?
Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive.
> Well, maybe wasting food should cost? Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.
Giving away food is pretty cheap. You just put it on a shelf with a big "FREE" sign.
> Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive.
But at least first lowering prices until they reach 0 seems cheaper?
> Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.
Because that's a vile thing to do when someone else wants to eat it, don't you think?
The concern isn't lost revenue it is empty stomachs. You should care more about the empty stomachs.
If people dont make money, then nobody grows the food or the store closes.
I also dont think hunger is a real problem in the US. Death from gluttony is far more common. For those who are hungry, there are already oppurtinities to get food. Putting more free food there doesnt help if they dont have access, or if they are a crackhead.