>it is too risky for a restaurant to donate No it isn't. It's perceived as too risky but that perception is demonstrably false. I've provided solid proof of th

>it is too risky for a restaurant to donate No it isn't. It's perceived as too risky but that perception is demonstrably false. I've provided solid proof of this and you've provided nothing. >They haven’t been sued because they don’t typically do it. You can keep repeating the same things over and over all you want. But until you back it up with supporting citations it appears you're just making things up. Statistically speaking, if X00,000 restaurants and stores are doing it today without being sued, it's pretty safe to say it will be similar for X,000,000. >But the way things stand now, you can’t in good conscience tell a restaurant to donate food without an intermediary organization in the area, and even then it’s risky. Show me anything (tweet, blog post, whatever) from an actual lawyer or legal organization supporting this opinion and I'll donate $25 to the Food Bank of your choice (I'm serious). I've provided legal support for my side of the argument already. It's your turn. The thing that's so infuriating here is that that you're exasperating the problem you claim to want to solve. People scan threads and see this myth repeated so it reinforces their misconception about the matter. Not only are you not helping, you're actively making it worse. Shame on you.