• nullspace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    That’s different because it’s a liability thing. Some asshole would sue over bad food which means nobody gets the food.

    • balsoft@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      They could donate the food to a food bank and be completely shielded from liability by Good Samaritan Act

      They don’t want to because it means that poor people can eat for free (gasp) which might slightly impact the restaurant industry and indirectly reduce their profit margin by 0.1%

    • WizardOfFrobozz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Americans would rather chuck perfectly good food into a dumpster than entertain the possibility of summoning the collective fucking will to fix a VERY straightforward problem. The idea that they could just legislate some reasonable liability protections and make sure edible food gets to hungry people apparently requires a level of imagination and civic competence beyond anyone’s wildest dream. So much easier to blame “some asshole” for creating what is surely an insurmountable legal paradox. The food rots, needy people go hungry, and the US gets to pretend the problem is some unavoidable fact of life rather than admit they just couldn’t be arsed to try.

    • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s not a liability thing there’s laws to protect businesses donating food in good faith. They would literally just throw it away than give it away because how dare anyone get anything for free.