The Student Room Group

France to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SotonianOne
By doing this you are raising the price of food for everyone else, therefore pulling those who are just managing out of the system and forcing them to use this for free, as well as being a jackass in general for making other people pay for a third party out of nothing.


Can I just point out that a lot of the cheapest food available in supermarkets is actually comprised of loss leaders, and so the very poorest may not contribute to supermarket profit at all? Presumably those with just enough money to be attracted by loss leaders and then buy enough other stuff to create a profit for the supermarket won't wish to take advantage of discarded food from charities. As a result, the policy should have little to no impact on anyone else.
Original post by SotonianOne
By doing this you are raising the price of food for everyone else


I disagree. Firstly because those who get this free food probably will mostly not be able to afford it anyway. Secondly because if these ****ers are smart then, so that they don't have to give it away, they'll just reduce the price so that they can shift more of it and keep up those dirty maximised profits.
Original post by SotonianOne
as well as being a jackass in general for making other people pay for a third party out of nothing.



What, you mean those Capitalist fat cats who make money by not paying people the full value of their work?
Don't care.
Original post by Jacky Hearts



What, you mean those Capitalist fat cats who make money by not paying people the full value of their work?
Don't care.


No, by being a jackass to people like me who have to pay 10p extra for every product to cover legal costs of the poisoning of poor people and compensation to their bereaved families which I don't want to pay or care about.
Original post by SotonianOne
No, by being a jackass to people like me who have to pay 10p extra for every product to cover legal costs of the poisoning of poor people and compensation to their bereaved families which I don't want to pay or care about.


I'm highly concerned that you'd continue buying food from a company which has accidentally poisoned people??
Original post by Jacky Hearts
I'm highly concerned that you'd continue buying food from a company which has accidentally poisoned people??


News flash, everything is poisonous when you leave it out too long. Not talking about wine or cheese.

Then you also have the products which are poisonous once every 1000, and if this happens on the poor person who hasn't bought the product I see no reason for the corporation to cough up compensation money.
Faith in humanity restored.
Original post by SotonianOne
News flash, everything is poisonous when you leave it out too long. Not talking about wine or cheese.

Then you also have the products which are poisonous once every 1000, and if this happens on the poor person who hasn't bought the product I see no reason for the corporation to cough up compensation money.


Yes but that won't matter because supermarkets throw things away on their sell by date which legally has to be before the use by date. If the charity the supermarket provides to doesn't keep track of the use by dates, as long as the supermarket provided either clear packaging or information as to what the use by date is, then that's no the supermarkets problem.

As for the 1 product in 1000 being poisonous that's literally no argument because the supermarket selling that product would have the exact same consequence.
Original post by Jacky Hearts

As for the 1 product in 1000 being poisonous that's literally no argument because the supermarket selling that product would have the exact same consequence.


Why should the supermarket pay a price to someone who has not been using their services?
Original post by SotonianOne
Why should the supermarket pay a price to someone who has not been using their services?


This conversation has become confused, let me explain my point.

The supermarket WOULD pay a price to someone who was poisoned from one of their products if they purchased it, potentially driving up the cost of products by an unknown percentage to compensate.

I doubt a supermarket would pay such a price to someone who received it via charity, as such that wouldn't drive the price up. However, if they did pay the price (maybe out of pressure from an authority) it would be no different to that product being sold to someone, meaning the charity again has no impact on the paying consumer.
Presumably a statutory obligation to provide food which the store has deemed unfit for sale (and let's remember this is France so it's 2-3 weeks later than the UK) would be incompatible with a duty of care. If they would be vulnerable to lawsuits it's logically ridiculous (how are they supposed to fulfil their duty?) and I don't believe that any reasonable legislature would enact such a measure, especially given it has cross-party support.
Original post by Jacky Hearts

I doubt a supermarket would pay such a price to someone who received it via charity, as such that wouldn't drive the price up. However, if they did pay the price (maybe out of pressure from an authority) it would be no different to that product being sold to someone, meaning the charity again has no impact on the paying consumer.


It is not about the money, it is about the principle.

The supermarket hasn't sold a product to someone, it was forcibly taken off from them, then that person was poisoned and the supermarket has to pay the price.

This does not make sense.

Selling automatic weapons without background checks is illegal in the US and the stores are liable if this is not followed. That's like me robbing a store and taking guns then killing people because they had faulty triggers, then the state making the store pay the compensation, because it was their guns I stole.
Reply 31
Avatar for Asolare
Asolare
OP
20
Oh I was just waiting for the mad right-wingers to come in and find any reason they can to dislike anything that advantages the poorest :rolleyes:
Original post by SotonianOne
It is not about the money, it is about the principle.

The supermarket hasn't sold a product to someone, it was forcibly taken off from them, then that person was poisoned and the supermarket has to pay the price.

This does not make sense.

Selling automatic weapons without background checks is illegal in the US and the stores are liable if this is not followed. That's like me robbing a store and taking guns then killing people because they had faulty triggers, then the state making the store pay the compensation, because it was their guns I stole.


Lives>principle.

Also if the supermarket ensured proper checks on these things then nobody would be poisoned. If someone can be poisoned from supermarket food then that is a problem with the supermarket which needs to be addressed.

Unless you're too free market for food regulations I think we've finally concluded that there's no realistic downside to this.
Original post by Inexorably
Oh I was just waiting for the mad right-wingers to come in and find any reason they can to dislike anything that advantages the poorest :rolleyes:


The attitudes of some people in regards to human lives really saddens me.
I don't really see this 'poisoning poor people' argument.

The sell-by dates and the best-before dates are well before the food becomes poisonous and dangerous to consume. I don't expect supermarkets to donate foodstuffs such as fruit or milk or anything that spoils easily. It can easily be managed to supply charities with food that can be safely consumed some time after they are taken off the shelves.
After that, it becomes the responsibility of the charity. Supposing that the supermarket had checked everything before the food was donated then it is the charity which has to manage storage and consumption.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Great! Artificially raise the price of food for everyone!


Why would increasing the supply of food by reducing waste increase prices?
In addition to this, there's also a big issue where in the countries that produce these foods loads of food is simply wasted cause they aren't aesthetically pleasing and don't fit supermarket specifications which should be donated to the poorest in society to feed them rather than just being thrown away
Original post by Jacky Hearts

Unless you're too free market for food regulations I think we've finally concluded that there's no realistic downside to this.


I am against compensation to people who didn't buy something then demand money for a product that has cost them their hand, lung or life.

If someone died then I don't see the need for the supermarket to pay comensation to the family. Why would they? The product was taken off them and it could have been re-checked and thrown away when they found out it is bad, you know, like all other products after the sell-by date?
Original post by SotonianOne
I am against compensation to people who didn't buy something then demand money for a product that has cost them their hand, lung or life.

If someone died then I don't see the need for the supermarket to pay comensation to the family. Why would they? The product was taken off them and it could have been re-checked and thrown away when they found out it is bad, you know, like all other products after the sell-by date?


Can you please explain on what basis you think a supermarket would be liable to compensate those who receive free food as a part of this scheme?
Original post by SotonianOne
I am against compensation to people who didn't buy something then demand money for a product that has cost them their hand, lung or life.

If someone died then I don't see the need for the supermarket to pay comensation to the family. Why would they? The product was taken off them and it could have been re-checked and thrown away when they found out it is bad, you know, like all other products after the sell-by date?


We've been over this.

If a supermarket provides a use by date (which is normally after the use by date) then it isn't the supermarket's fault logically. If, on the other hand, they fail to provide a use by date, or there is something else wrong with a product which makes its consumption dangerous, then the supermarket is at fault (as well as their suppliers in the latter case) if the faulty product results in human harm. They should thus be accountable for failing to carry out a legal and, much more importantly, a moral duty.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you