3 ms·

That's not a good comparison, not complying with health regulations substantially devalues the food given away, because of the significantly increased risk of i

That's not a good comparison, not complying with health regulations substantially devalues the food given away, because of the significantly increased risk of illness resulting from consumption of said food. Your second statement is irrelevant, we are not talking about what the law does, but what the law should do. And I absolutely think that gifts (and good samaritan acts in general) should be held to a much lower standard than commercial enterprises. This is not at all unprecedented in US law (or in many places in the world), every state has some form of good samaritan law[1], which protects (to some extent) individuals who act in good faith to aid strangers in need of immediate medical assistance. There is also a federal law indemnifying donors of properly labeled foods, except in the case of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. These laws are important, because donations result in no benefit for the bearer, so making them cost money is a significant deterrence to charity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law#United_Stat...

bonaldi 10y ago
What does it matter in your scheme if the food being given away is substantially devalued? It's a gift, it should be held to a lower standard, right? Or are you saying that the gift must be of an equal value to that sold? Do they have to also serve it on fine china to the homeless? How low should the lowered standard be, then? My second statement is disagreeing with yours. The law does and should absolutely hold organisational gifts to the same standard as commercial transactions. Not least because otherwise you create a massive loophole ripe for exploitation, at all levels. "Hey, don't tax my import, it was a gift!". "Hey, my formula milk shouldn't be subject to marketing laws, it's a gift to new [and ill-educated] mothers!" "Hey, I shouldn't be subject to your weird license restrictions, my source code was a gift to the community!" Now, sure, good samaritan laws are important things. But so is equality legislation, and disability rights legislation, and much of the other legislation that defines the standards society expects of its participants.

bonaldi 10y ago

What does it matter in your scheme if the food being given away is substantially devalued? It's a gift, it should be held to a lower standard, right? Or are you saying that the gift must be of an equal value to that sold? Do they have to also serve it on fine china to the homeless? How low should the lowered standard be, then? My second statement is disagreeing with yours. The law does and should absolutely hold organisational gifts to the same standard as commercial transactions. Not least because otherwise you create a massive loophole ripe for exploitation, at all levels. "Hey, don't tax my import, it was a gift!". "Hey, my formula milk shouldn't be subject to marketing laws, it's a gift to new [and ill-educated] mothers!" "Hey, I shouldn't be subject to your weird license restrictions, my source code was a gift to the community!" Now, sure, good samaritan laws are important things. But so is equality legislation, and disability rights legislation, and much of the other legislation that defines the standards society expects of its participants.