sicetaitsimple wrote:A slightly brutal answer would be to say that if you have 3 equids it is normally for your pleasure and that you demerdes to feed them.
I do not understand this remark! ... As others have cats, dogs and goldfish (I also have dog, cats and goldfish), I have equines for dozens of years. years. It has been my job for years, and it is still punctually, and I necessarily feed them as it should. Recovering unsold food when the opportunity arises to improve their daily lives and make them happy is a plus.
Then that indeed it is a huge problem to "distribute" in a "fair" way, according to the real needs, perishable unsold products, if you have a solution it is welcome.
This is not the object of my comment: there is no "fairness" in my reflection but the observation of inconsistencies of a system starting with a law which prohibits rather than reflecting on the dysfunction and propose recommendations or aids that promote a solution.
But it is true, for the defense of Secretary of State Brown Poiron, that this law was motivated by recent high-profile cases where major clothing brands knowingly destroyed entire collections as the new collection had just arrived. The law has been extended to food businesses but the constraints are not the same: the food imposes very short deadlines, even the rigorous respect of the cold chain or storage in a suitable place.
The food trade generates unsold and waste, and it is a fact against which we can not do much except try to anticipate better.
For example, my baker explained to me that time played a lot on the behavior of customers, but also other parameters difficult to manage. For example, on the occasion of a local event announced (market, garage sale, party, sports, etc.), the baker prepares more bread than usual ... and then, against all odds, he There are fewer customers ... The surplus bread produced goes to the bucket, and the quantities can reach substantial volumes. There are also errors, for example too much or not enough cooking, that make astronomical quantities of a product is not sold because it does not meet the criteria of the sign.
The same applies to fruit and vegetable shops: some goods are packaged in bags weighing several kilograms, for example apples and carrots, and if an apple or a carrot is damaged in the bag, everything goes to the dumpster because it is Too long to open the packaging, remove the damaged fruit or vegetable, check others, repackage by redoing the indicated weight or re-labeling.
For goods sold a few €, the time spent by an employee to do this task is not profitable, so it is faster and more economical to take the bag that contains 1 damaged food and throw it.
Finally, it seems really inappropriate to throw stones more or less directly at food collection operations at the exit of supermarkets, collections carried out by volunteers and whose sorting and distribution are also carried out by volunteers and who do a substantial part of the "inputs" of "food banks" various type restau du cœur or others.
Neither is it the object of my remark to throw stones at anyone. I am not looking for a "culprit" but I note inconsistencies, in particular at the level of the legislator who makes a law but which cannot be applied correctly by all concerned.
That said, I also have anecdotes that still translate a selfishness that has no place today.
For example, a well-known bakery chain replied that "they did not give away unsold items because it looked bad and preferred to throw them away" ...
Or another time, when I was asking if there were any unsold items, I was asked "What for?" When I said that it was for animals, they gave them to me, telling me: "For animals it's okay, but not if it's for people" ... Like what, my pets have benefits that needy humans don't.
And I also specify that I sort the food that is given to me, and what is conspicuously consumable, I bring it to a reception center for the homeless ... in all illegality but with the thanks of the officials who prefer have good food products unsold even if they do not follow the legal procedure ...
More simply, the state could have helped municipalities, (small) businesses or charities to organize to set up a system of recycling unsold. Everyone in this system has its constraints: some businesses do not have the time, not the staff, nor the place to store their unsold products, associations do not have the logistics to shop around at night to collect unsold items, the communes have other worries, etc. As I said, the only businesses that manage to react are mostly supermarkets, and some do, but mostly for reasons of tax benefits. And for large charities, it is easier to send a truck to recover large volumes of various commodities in a supermarket than to go around small businesses.
We have already often mentioned another detail: it is more interesting and easier to throw than to give!
But perhaps the new law has changed this detail? ...
