4 ms·

some places already do this for food where anything thats after sell by date but still safe to eat has to be donated to a food bank. i think it should be expan

by tancop 3mo ago

some places already do this for food where anything thats after sell by date but still safe to eat has to be donated to a food bank. i think it should be expanded to cover more categories than food and clothes when reuse and recycling infra grows to take the demand. its not just good for the environment it also prevents producers from restricting supply to keep their profits high. the ultimate goal is make it illegal to destroy or intentionally damage anything usable before it reaches consumers. that would create a new ecosystem of discount stores and giveaway centers, and save everyone a ton of money.

jandrewrogers 3mo ago
Who pays for the logistics cost of moving and stocking these products in discount stores and giveaway centers? That is a large percentage of the total cost of production and the reason disposal is cheaper. If those costs are paid for by taxpayers then the consumers are in effect involuntarily buying products they would not have otherwise bought, just with more steps. We already see this with agricultural subsidies. If those costs are charged back to the producer then it becomes economically optimal to under-produce, which will cause prices to rise and risk shortages but eliminate waste. One can make the argument that higher prices for basic goods to reduce waste is a social good but it also impoverishes consumers. All of these scenarios have happened empirically countless times. That almost every producer over-produces to some extent at no profit to themselves when allowed has strong "Chesterton's Fence" characteristics.
- rzwitserloot 3mo ago
  It's a somewhat blunt instrument used to internalize some externalities: Making a product and then destroying it is wasteful, and the market will fix all internalized costs of that waste, but some of those costs are externalized. Having society pay somewhat for producing clothes that are then worn, that's one thing. Having society pay for pointless waste is another. What you've said is: Looking only at the internalized costs, pointless-wasting a percentage of clothes costs X but reduces clothes cost in the store by Y, with Y being larger than X. Okay. Irrelevant - that math doesn't include externalized costs. It may well be that this is a stupid idea, but "market decided destroying some clothes was more efficient" doesn't prove anything unless you can show that the size of the externalized costs to this process are 0 or close enough to 0 to have no meaningful relevance.
  - SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
    Again, the waste is not pointless, it's part of an inventory management strategy to ensure adequate supply. If your local grocery store established a policy that they'll never buy more meat than they're sure they can sell before the expiration date, they'd routinely run out.
    - jyounker 3mo ago
      Do you have proof of that assertion?
      - jandrewrogers 3mo ago
        Happens all the time at my local butcher shop. They make a point of using the whole animal -- no waste -- but that means they are frequently out of the more popular products. For the most popular parts you sometimes have to reserve it a week in advance from a future animal.
    - IneffablePigeon 3mo ago
      The result of laws like this is not that the store will never buy too much, it’s that when they do buy too much they will give it away to somewhere it can be used instead of destroying it. It will not cost them much if any more to simply give things to food banks or charity shops.
      - loeg 3mo ago
        It in fact does cost them more to give things than to destroy them.
        rzwitserloot 3mo ago
        ... and it costs society more to process the destroyed waste, and it costs society more to then deal with the fallout of shelters not having enough clothes. Or not. Who knows. The point is, this 'economically it is more efficient' is not a proven case because the externalities need to be taken into account, and so far the person I've been responding to seems to not understand this part, or is ignoring it.
- herbst 3mo ago
  > Who pays for the logistics cost of moving and stocking these products in discount stores and giveaway centers? All the examples I know of (Austria, Switzerland) are social clubs/associations (whatever that is called) and DO NOT depend on tax payer money.
s1artibartfast 3mo ago
It may be an incentive to produce less and restrict options available. It really depends on how much harm it does to the company to donate or mark down their product.
mc32 3mo ago
Food4Less I think is owned by a larger grocery store brand. They sell near due date or past due date foods at a reduced price. There are also third party past due grocers in secondary cities.
groundzeros2015 3mo ago
> that would create a new ecosystem of discount stores and giveaway centers, and save everyone a ton of money. No. The real cost storage and selling, not the finished product. You don't magically get competent organizations to sell that popping out of the ground. I have worked at a donation center like goodwill before. They get tons of stuff and throw away most of it. People won't buy it and they don't have time or space.

by tancop 3mo ago

jandrewrogers 3mo ago

Who pays for the logistics cost of moving and stocking these products in discount stores and giveaway centers? That is a large percentage of the total cost of production and the reason disposal is cheaper. If those costs are paid for by taxpayers then the consumers are in effect involuntarily buying products they would not have otherwise bought, just with more steps. We already see this with agricultural subsidies. If those costs are charged back to the producer then it becomes economically optimal to under-produce, which will cause prices to rise and risk shortages but eliminate waste. One can make the argument that higher prices for basic goods to reduce waste is a social good but it also impoverishes consumers. All of these scenarios have happened empirically countless times. That almost every producer over-produces to some extent at no profit to themselves when allowed has strong "Chesterton's Fence" characteristics.

rzwitserloot 3mo ago
It's a somewhat blunt instrument used to internalize some externalities: Making a product and then destroying it is wasteful, and the market will fix all internalized costs of that waste, but some of those costs are externalized. Having society pay somewhat for producing clothes that are then worn, that's one thing. Having society pay for pointless waste is another. What you've said is: Looking only at the internalized costs, pointless-wasting a percentage of clothes costs X but reduces clothes cost in the store by Y, with Y being larger than X. Okay. Irrelevant - that math doesn't include externalized costs. It may well be that this is a stupid idea, but "market decided destroying some clothes was more efficient" doesn't prove anything unless you can show that the size of the externalized costs to this process are 0 or close enough to 0 to have no meaningful relevance.
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
  Again, the waste is not pointless, it's part of an inventory management strategy to ensure adequate supply. If your local grocery store established a policy that they'll never buy more meat than they're sure they can sell before the expiration date, they'd routinely run out.
  - jyounker 3mo ago
    Do you have proof of that assertion?
    - jandrewrogers 3mo ago
      Happens all the time at my local butcher shop. They make a point of using the whole animal -- no waste -- but that means they are frequently out of the more popular products. For the most popular parts you sometimes have to reserve it a week in advance from a future animal.
  - IneffablePigeon 3mo ago
    The result of laws like this is not that the store will never buy too much, it’s that when they do buy too much they will give it away to somewhere it can be used instead of destroying it. It will not cost them much if any more to simply give things to food banks or charity shops.
    - loeg 3mo ago
      It in fact does cost them more to give things than to destroy them.
      - rzwitserloot 3mo ago
        ... and it costs society more to process the destroyed waste, and it costs society more to then deal with the fallout of shelters not having enough clothes. Or not. Who knows. The point is, this 'economically it is more efficient' is not a proven case because the externalities need to be taken into account, and so far the person I've been responding to seems to not understand this part, or is ignoring it.
herbst 3mo ago
> Who pays for the logistics cost of moving and stocking these products in discount stores and giveaway centers? All the examples I know of (Austria, Switzerland) are social clubs/associations (whatever that is called) and DO NOT depend on tax payer money.

s1artibartfast 3mo ago

It may be an incentive to produce less and restrict options available. It really depends on how much harm it does to the company to donate or mark down their product.

mc32 3mo ago

Food4Less I think is owned by a larger grocery store brand. They sell near due date or past due date foods at a reduced price. There are also third party past due grocers in secondary cities.

groundzeros2015 3mo ago

> that would create a new ecosystem of discount stores and giveaway centers, and save everyone a ton of money. No. The real cost storage and selling, not the finished product. You don't magically get competent organizations to sell that popping out of the ground. I have worked at a donation center like goodwill before. They get tons of stuff and throw away most of it. People won't buy it and they don't have time or space.