NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I just happened across a most remarkable bit of news. Unfortunately, I've only got a German text on it : http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,590329,00.html

To give a short summary, the employees of a Lidl supermarket in Stockholm have for a short period of time been poisoning out-of-date food with cleaning chemicals before putting them out in the dumpster. They wanted to keep homeless people from taking the food once it's been thrown out.
The company issued an apology for this in the meantime.

But it does point to an interesting thought : should people, homeless or other, be allowed to take goods (especially food) that has been thrown away by supermarkets?
I know there are some people in the UK who will get most of their weekly "shopping" from dumpsters outside Tesco's and Sainsbury's... they usually go after the supermarket has closed for the night. I've seen a documentary the other day, for some people the motive is simply to reduce the waste of these supermarkets, who will throw out things like multi-packs of chocolates for no other reason that the outer package being broken (the chocolate itself is still nice and clean within two more layers of packaging...)

I'm a bit in two minds... one the one hand I don't see how those supermarkets can object to somebody taking what they so obviously don't want any more.
On the other hand, while the rubbish is still on their premisses it's their call really, isn't it?

That's pretty schlimm.

I'm a bit in two minds... one the one hand I don't see how those supermarkets can object to somebody taking what they so obviously don't want any more.
On the other hand, while the rubbish is still on their premisses it's their call really, isn't it?I'm amazed. All this could have been avoided by donating this stuff.

That's pretty schlimm.

Pretty drastisch, even.

I'm amazed. All this could have been avoided by donating this stuff.

I'm finding it somewhat scary, even... As you said, if I had been in that position and wanted to avoid homeless people raiding my bins, I'd donate the stuff. Many charities will even come and pick it up on your doorstep.
But to even think of pouring chemicals over it to make it inedible... wow. Sick mindset.

I think that's totally blighted of the supermarkets. I can't see any justifiable motive for it.

As for what's thrown out, I'm surprised as heck that the broken-package stuff ever makes it to the dumpster. Around here, anything remotely edible is eaten by the baggers about 10 minutes after it gets into the employees-only area. Not that the stores want the baggers to eat it either, but such directives are made for ignoring. (I did bagging a few years ago. It's amazing the crap we'd eat when it was free and we'd been in the store looking at food all day!)

Our store didn't have any anti-homeless initiative, but I did warn one guy that if WE didn't want it, it's probably because it's actually rotten.

Sick minds indeed. Personally, I think there should be some law they've broken. In my country, you're not allowed to just dump toxic household or commercial chemicals (like cleaning products) with the regular food waste garbage precisely to avoid poisoning animals, children, adults, and to stop the chemicals from leaching into the ground or drain systems (where it can eventually get into rivers or the ocean). Isn't this (A) a violation of waste disposal regulations and (B) because of their motive, reckless endangerment or depraved indifference to human life?

And I would certainly hope that, if anyone ate that contaminated food and died, they'd be up on manslaughter, maybe even murder, again because of their stated motive, which was expressly to set out poison.

And as was said, all this could have been avoided if they'd donated the food to a homeless shelter -- but I guess in some people's minds poisoning the poor is better than feeding them.

This is why we need a hell.

EDIT: And as for whether people are allowed to take other people's garbage -- it's garbage. You don't want it, why shouldn't someone else take it? In the US, the minute your garbage hits the dumpster or you put it on the curb, it's no longer considered your property, legally, because you abandoned it. If these people are so selfish that they can't even let go of their garbage, let them put padlocks on their dumpsters. The bastards.

That's just sick, what if somebody got sick, or worse, from them doing that? Seriously I don't understand why the store's should even care other than image...

Fergi America;14210313']I think that's totally blighted of the supermarkets. I can't see any justifiable motive for it.

As for what's thrown out, I'm surprised as heck that the broken-package stuff ever makes it to the dumpster. Around here, anything remotely edible is eaten by the baggers about 10 minutes after it gets into the employees-only area. Not that the stores want the baggers to eat it either, but such directives are made for ignoring. (I did bagging a few years ago. It's amazing the crap we'd eat when it was free and we'd been in the store looking at food all day!)

Our store didn't have any anti-homeless initiative, but I did warn one guy that if WE didn't want it, it's probably because it's actually rotten.

No baggers. I don't know anywhere in Europe that actually employs them... Tescos sometimes has people doing it collecting for charity.

Sick minds indeed. Personally, I think there should be some law they've broken. In my country, you're not allowed to just dump toxic household or commercial chemicals (like cleaning products) with the regular food waste garbage precisely to avoid poisoning animals, children, adults, and to stop the chemicals from leaching into the ground or drain systems (where it can eventually get into rivers or the ocean). Isn't this (A) a violation of waste disposal regulations and (B) because of their motive, reckless endangerment or depraved indifference to human life?

And I would certainly hope that, if anyone ate that contaminated food and died, they'd be up on manslaughter, maybe even murder, again because of their stated motive, which was expressly to set out poison.

And as was said, all this could have been avoided if they'd donated the food to a homeless shelter -- but I guess in some people's minds poisoning the poor is better than feeding them.

This is why we need a hell.

EDIT: And as for whether people are allowed to take other people's garbage -- it's garbage. You don't want it, why shouldn't someone else take it? In the US, the minute your garbage hits the dumpster or you put it on the curb, it's no longer considered your property, legally, because you abandoned it. If these people are so selfish that they can't even let go of their garbage, let them put padlocks on their dumpsters. The bastards.

I think what they probably poured over the stuff was bleach or dishwashing liquid. There's no law against throwing that out over here, as far as I know.

But the manslaughter charges are a very good point indeed.

Sick minds indeed. Personally, I think there should be some law they've broken. In my country, you're not allowed to just dump toxic household or commercial chemicals (like cleaning products) with the regular food waste garbage precisely to avoid poisoning animals, children, adults, and to stop the chemicals from leaching into the ground or drain systems (where it can eventually get into rivers or the ocean). Isn't this (A) a violation of waste disposal regulations and (B) because of their motive, reckless endangerment or depraved indifference to human life?

And I would certainly hope that, if anyone ate that contaminated food and died, they'd be up on manslaughter, maybe even murder, again because of their stated motive, which was expressly to set out poison.

And as was said, all this could have been avoided if they'd donated the food to a homeless shelter -- but I guess in some people's minds poisoning the poor is better than feeding them.

This is why we need a hell.

EDIT: And as for whether people are allowed to take other people's garbage -- it's garbage. You don't want it, why shouldn't someone else take it? In the US, the minute your garbage hits the dumpster or you put it on the curb, it's no longer considered your property, legally, because you abandoned it. If these people are so selfish that they can't even let go of their garbage, let them put padlocks on their dumpsters. The bastards.They used regular cleaning chemicals, so it's unlikely they broke any laws concerning inappropriate disposal. They also put up signs warning about the chemicals, so manslaughter may not be in the cards. The dumpsters are probably on their property, so I'm pretty sure it's still theirs.
Fergi America;14210313']I think that's totally blighted of the supermarkets. I can't see any justifiable motive for it.

As for what's thrown out, I'm surprised as heck that the broken-package stuff ever makes it to the dumpster. Around here, anything remotely edible is eaten by the baggers about 10 minutes after it gets into the employees-only area. Not that the stores want the baggers to eat it either, but such directives are made for ignoring. (I did bagging a few years ago. It's amazing the crap we'd eat when it was free and we'd been in the store looking at food all day!)

Our store didn't have any anti-homeless initiative, but I did warn one guy that if WE didn't want it, it's probably because it's actually rotten.

That's just sick, what if somebody got sick, or worse, from them doing that? Seriously I don't understand why the store's should even care other than image...
It's not the store itself that did it, but a number of employees apparently working independently of management.

As a counter image to this, back in cruel, heartless New York City, where I'm from, food stores and restaurants were in the habit of actually setting aside food, not only to donate to charity kitchens, but also to give directly to any local homeless who might hang around the area, especially the ones who were really not doing well. It was very common to see deli employees going around their local streets, delivering coffee and sandwiches to whatever regular beggars were in the area, or supermarket employees giving food at their back loading areas to homeless people they knew from around.

It's a blessing to help those in need. It doesn't hurt a business's image to be seen as kind and generous.

I'll say it again: The word for these Lidl people is "bastards."

I'm a bit in two minds... one the one hand I don't see how those supermarkets can object to somebody taking what they so obviously don't want any more.
On the other hand, while the rubbish is still on their premisses it's their call really, isn't it?

It's their call, but to a limit. If I didn't want people rooting through my garbage and I put a grenade trap tied to the lid, I'd still be liable for manslaughter at the very least.

Poisoning the throwaway stuff isn't as drastic, but still follows the same problems.

They used regular cleaning chemicals, so it's unlikely they broke any laws concerning inappropriate disposal. They also put up signs warning about the chemicals, so manslaughter may not be in the cards. The dumpsters are probably on their property, so I'm pretty sure it's still theirs.

Bleach, laundry detergent, drain cleaner, ammonia, all these are regular cleaning chemicals, and in the US, you must dispose of them according to city and/or state ordinances. The majority of localities require that liquid household chemicals, such as the above and others, and also including such things as household oils and lubricants and latex or oil-base paint, have to be brought in person to the municipal dump or you have to make an appointment with your municipal waste carter to pick them up separately, so they can be handled separately.

Also, in the US, packaging for such regular household cleaning products must have safe disposal instructions printed clearly on them. For liquid chemicals that can be flushed down drains, they must be flushed down drains. You are not allowed to put the liquids in the regular trash. Also you must wash out the empty containers before putting them in the garbage, too.

It's just good sense. In the US, such chemicals leaching into the ground water system as a result of garbage being exposed to heavy rain have been directly linked to serious cumulative environmental damage over time, as well as more immediate animal poisonings.

If Germany has no such regulations, remind me never to drink the water there.'

EDIT: Oh, also, in the US, you are not allowed to set out poison traps for people, even if you do it on your own property. If you have a problem with trespassers, you call the cops and put locks on your dumpsters. Putting out poison especially targeting people can fall under the heading of attempted murder.

Bleach, laundry detergent, drain cleaner, ammonia, all these are regular cleaning chemicals, and in the US, you must dispose of them according to city and/or state ordinances. The majority of localities require that liquid household chemicals, such as the above and others, and also including such things as household oils and lubricants and latex or oil-base paint, have to be brought in person to the municipal dump or you have to make an appointment with your municipal waste carter to pick them up separately, so they can be handled separately.

Otherwise, in the US, packaging for such regular household cleaning products must have safe disposal instructions printed clearly on them. For liquid chemicals that can be flushed down drains, they must be flushed down drains. You are not allowed to put the liquids in the regular trash. Also you must wash out the empty containers before putting them in the garbage, too.

It's just good sense. In the US, such chemicals leaching into the ground water system as a result of garbage being exposed to heavy rain have been directly linked to serious cumulative environmental damage over time, as well as more immediate animal poisonings.

If Germany has no such regulations, remind me never to drink the water there.Well, we are talking about Sweden, here.

Well, we are talking about Sweden, here.
Wherever the hell it is. Europe is fast losing its ability to claim that the US is barbaric.

(Sorry, I can't keep the country straight in my head; I'm still on my first coffee of the day.)

If Germany has no such regulations, remind me never to drink the water there.

The case in question occured in Sweden.
But I don't know of any such regulations in Germany for mild cleaning materials (dish washing liquid, bleach, and the like). Paints have to be brought in seperately, same as batteries, etc.
I have to note, though, that garbage as far as I know is not exposed to rainwater during the recycling proccess, so there's very little danger of the water being affected.

I'm amazed. All this could have been avoided by donating this stuff.

If it's past its useby date and they donated it knowing it was therefore not judged fit to be eaten by humans, wouldn't it cause legal issues if someone got sick from eating it?

Wherever the hell it is. Europe is fast losing its ability to claim that the US is barbaric.

(Sorry, I can't keep the country straight in my head; I'm still on my first coffee of the day.)Well, considering that it's illegal to dispose of batteries in the trash over here, whereas it's commonly done in the US, I'd say Europe need not be terribly worried about losing that claim =P

If it's past its useby date and they donated it knowing it was therefore not judged fit to be eaten by humans, wouldn't it cause legal issues if someone got sick from eating it?

REminds me of that case of that European minister years ago who suggested to donate beef that was suspected (but not proven) to be BSE infected to third world countries...

If it's past its useby date and they donated it knowing it was therefore not judged fit to be eaten by humans, wouldn't it cause legal issues if someone got sick from eating it?If something is past a use date, it's judged unfit to be sold to humans. It's usually still ok to eat a time unit or two (which one depends on the good in question) after the use by date passes.

The Supermarket around the corner from my house gives away anything theyre gonna throw out. Round closing time theres always a bunch of homeless/poor people standing around their servcie entrance ready to pick stuff up.

Poisoning the food is just fucking mean, the person who thought this up aswell as his/her accomplices should face some serious jailtime.

The case in question occured in Sweden.
But I don't know of any such regulations in Germany for mild cleaning materials (dish washing liquid, bleach, and the like). Paints have to be brought in seperately, same as batteries, etc.
I have to note, though, that garbage as far as I know is not exposed to rainwater during the recycling proccess, so there's very little danger of the water being affected.

That's what everyone in Long Island, NY, thought until the oyster and scallop beds suddenly died and the almost 300-year-old fishing industry died with it, in just a few years. It took the Environmental Protection Agency over a decade of research to find conclusive proof that storm run-off from normally handled garbage generated by households and local businesses was so contaminated with regular household chemicals that it was the direct culprit. Rain washes over, into and through dumpsters and cans, even with their lids on. It washes over municipal dumps. And it pours into the public storm drains, which flow directly into the open natural waterways. Animals and bugs also get into all kinds of garbage containers, and carry those chemicals out with them again, spreading their contamination everywhere they go. Over time, it builds up alarmingly, and can be traced to a variety of public health hazards. In most parts of the US, the big blame for waterway and coast damage is the demon "garden fertilizers," but in Long Island, the murder of the oysters and scallops was put down to Chemlawn, Turtle Wax, and Clorox.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe that Sweden (thanks for the correction; coffee-starved brain got stuck on Germany for some reason) does not know this and does not have regulations about it. It's a bit shocking to me, actually.

Well, considering that it's illegal to dispose of batteries in the trash over here, whereas it's commonly done in the US, I'd say Europe need not be terribly worried about losing that claim =P
In the US, we don't pour bleach over food to stop the homeless from eating it.

That's what everyone in Long Island, NY, thought until the oyster and scallop beds suddenly died and the almost 300-year-old fishing industry died with it, in just a few years. It took the Environmental Protection Agency over a decade of research to find conclusive proof that storm run-off from normally handled garbage generated by households and local businesses was so contaminated with regular household chemicals that it was the direct culprit. Rain washes over, into and through dumpsters and cans, even with their lids on. It washes over municipal dumps. And it pours into the public storm drains, which flow directly into the open natural waterways. Animals and bugs also get into all kinds of garbage containers, and carry those chemicals out with them again, spreading their contamination everywhere they go. Over time, it builds up alarmingly, and can be traced to a variety of public health hazards.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe that Sweden (thanks for the correction; coffee-starved brain got stuck on Germany for some reason) does not know this and does not have regulations about it. It's a bit shocking to me, actually.

Ah, there might be the difference right there : Drains and sewers in most of Europe don't go straight back into nature, they're going through a cleaning process first.
Any kind of waste water gets several kinds of treatments to filter out toxins and solid waste before being cirected out into rivers and the sea again.

In the US, we don't pour bleach over food to stop the homeless from eating it.

I think the fact that this has actually made international news is a clear indicator that it's not exactly the norm in Europe, either. ;)

In the US, we don't pour bleach over food to stop the homeless from eating it.This is an isolated event that the store itself is apologizing for. I'm sure there are enough similarly callous, isolated acts across the US to put the US on equal footing.

This really need not end in a "But mine's not as mean" pissing match.

If it's past its useby date and they donated it knowing it was therefore not judged fit to be eaten by humans, wouldn't it cause legal issues if someone got sick from eating it?
Again, I am losing my faith in the regulatory standards of Europe, but again, in the US, the sell-by date falls well short of the spoilage date. You're not allowed to SELL the food after that date, but people can still eat it. It's perfectly safe, as long as it has been stored/handled properly while it was on the selling shelf. It just means you should eat it sooner rather than later.

And food that is given away is not sold...

Again, I am losing my faith in the regulatory standards of Europe, but again, in the US, the sell-by date falls well short of the spoilage date. You're not allowed to SELL the food after that date, but people can still eat it. It's perfectly safe, as long as it has been stored/handled properly while it was on the selling shelf. It just means you should eat it sooner rather than later.

And food that is given away is not sold...

Are there two seperate dates on food in the US, then? Sell by and eat by?
Most European countries just have the sell-by date on food. When the food is eaten is up to the consumer, really. Although I have had things go off well before their sell-by date, despite correct storage.

There is a legal issue about it, though, as I think you've got a legal case if you get food poisoning from something that was still before sell-by. I'm not sure what the situation would be if an official charity gave out food that's past its sell-by, it might well be illegal.

Ah, there might be the difference right there : Drains and sewers in most of Europe don't go straight back into nature, they're going through a cleaning process first.
Any kind of waste water gets several kinds of treatments to filter out toxins and solid waste before being cirected out into rivers and the sea again.
A storm drain is not a sewer.

All drains that are inside buildings feed into sewers, which are strictly separate from storm drains and drinking water lines. Sewers get fed into treatment plants before the water can be released.

STORM DRAINS are just the gutter drains that rain water flows into to keep the surface streets from flooding. That is nothing but a system for shunting rain water away from buildings and streets as fast as possible, and it goes from anywhere where rainwater might accumulate down to the natural systems that it would eventually flow into anyway. Storm drains have nothing to do with the sewer system. In fact, in the US (and I'll bet in Europe, too), it is vitally important that the sewers be kept separate from the storm drains. Storm drains are only moving rain water, so they do not get treated. I admit it -- we don't wash the rain in the US. This is why storm drain openings are marked with notices that it is illegal to dump anything -- like regular cleaning products -- into them, because they flow directly into rivers, lakes or the ocean.

This is an isolated event that the store itself is apologizing for. I'm sure there are enough similarly callous, isolated acts across the US to put the US on equal footing.

This really need not end in a "But mine's not as mean" pissing match.
Uh-huh, yeah, whatever.

A storm drain is not a sewer.

All drains that are inside buildings feed into sewers, which are strictly separate from storm drains and drinking water lines. Sewers get fed into treatment plants before the water can be released.

STORM DRAINS are just the gutter drains that rain water flows into to keep the surface streets from flooding. That is nothing but a system for shunting rain water away from buildings and streets as fast as possible, and it goes from anywhere where rainwater might accumulate down to the natural systems that it would eventually flow into anyway. Storm drains have nothing to do with the sewer system. In fact, in the US (and I'll bet in Europe, too), it is vitally important that the sewers be kept separate from the storm drains. Storm drains are only moving rain water, so they do not get treated. I admit it -- we don't wash the rain in the US. This is why storm drain openings are marked with notices that it is illegal to dump anything -- like regular cleaning products -- into them, because they flow directly into rivers, lakes or the ocean.What Cabra is pointing out is that a lot of European cities don't have separate storm drains and sewers. Quite honestly, the whole thing about rainwater leaching dangerous chemicals is an argument against having them separated in the first place.

Are there two seperate dates on food in the US, then? Sell by and eat by?
Most European countries just have the sell-by date on food. When the food is eaten is up to the consumer, really. Although I have had things go off well before their sell-by date, despite correct storage.

There is a legal issue about it, though, as I think you've got a legal case if you get food poisoning from something that was still before sell-by. I'm not sure what the situation would be if an official charity gave out food that's past its sell-by, it might well be illegal.
It depends on the food. Perishable foods are stamped with their sell-by date, and if you ask food safety authorities, the guideline is that the sell-by date is calculated to be a couple of days to a little over a week before the expected spoilage date, with proper refrigeration, depending on the food. So, you should use meat within two days of buying it, but a quart of milk or a loaf of bread can be expected to be good to drink 5-7 days past its sell-by if stored properly.

Non-perishable and preserved foods, which don't need refrigeration, such as grains and cereals and canned goods, are stamped with a use-by date, which is calculated for how long before the food goes stale, again with proper storage. Consumers can judge how fresh the food is in the store by how far away the use-by date is. It can be anywhere from several weeks up to a year, depending on the food.

A storm drain is not a sewer.

All drains that are inside buildings feed into sewers, which are strictly separate from storm drains and drinking water lines. Sewers get fed into treatment plants before the water can be released.

STORM DRAINS are just the gutter drains that rain water flows into to keep the surface streets from flooding. That is nothing but a system for shunting rain water away from buildings and streets as fast as possible, and it goes from anywhere where rainwater might accumulate down to the natural systems that it would eventually flow into anyway. Storm drains have nothing to do with the sewer system. In fact, in the US (and I'll bet in Europe, too), it is vitally important that the sewers be kept separate from the storm drains. Storm drains are only moving rain water, so they do not get treated. I admit it -- we don't wash the rain in the US. This is why storm drain openings are marked with notices that it is illegal to dump anything -- like regular cleaning products -- into them, because they flow directly into rivers, lakes or the ocean.

Ok, I had to read up on this, because I honestly wasn't 100% sure.
However, in Germany, ALL waste water (including waste water from households, industry and rain water) passes through the Kanalisation (not exactly the same as sewers in the US, as it collects ALL water, but I don't know another English word for it) and will be treated before it's brought back out into nature.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abwasser The article is in German again, though.

What Cabra is pointing out is that a lot of European cities don't have separate storm drains and sewers. Quite honestly, the whole thing about rainwater leaching dangerous chemicals is an argument against having them separated in the first place.
The reason a lot of European cities don't have separate storm drains is because they had to build out from old systems where all the drains were open sewers.

It depends on the food. Perishable foods are stamped with their sell-by date, and if you ask food safety authorities, the guideline is that the sell-by date is calculated to be a couple of days to a little over a week before the expected spoilage date, with proper refrigeration, depending on the food. So, you should use meat within two days of buying it, but a quart of milk or a loaf of bread can be expected to be good to drink 5-7 days past its sell-by if stored properly.

Non-perishable and preserved foods, which don't need refrigeration, such as grains and cereals and canned goods, are stamped with a use-by date, which is calculated for how long before the food goes stale, again with proper storage. Consumers can judge how fresh the food is in the store by how far away the use-by date is. It can be anywhere from several weeks up to a year, depending on the food.

So, essentially you would need to be quite knowledgeable about those dates and guidelines if you want to avoid legal trouble when giving out food that's past sell-by?

Ok, I had to read up on this, because I honestly wasn't 100% sure.
However, in Germany, ALL waste water (including waste water from households, industry and rain water) passes through the Kanalisation (not exactly the same as sewers in the US, as it collects ALL water, but I don't know another English word for it) and will be treated before it's brought back out into nature.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abwasser The article is in German again, though.
OK, so we've learned that the reason they may not have broken the law by dumping chemicals over their food garbage is that their country treats rain runoff, thus taking away the environmental hazard. Thanks for settling that.

Now, I wonder how that country feels about setting out poison for human beings.

The reason a lot of European cities don't have separate storm drains is because they had to build out from old systems where all the drains were open sewers.

True, but even the new ones are being built with just one system, and a treatment plant linking it to the rivers.

So, essentially you would need to be quite knowledgeable about those dates and guidelines if you want to avoid legal trouble when giving out food that's past sell-by?
You only need to know how to read. The dates are stamped right on the containers.

"Sell by: <date>"

"Use by [or Best if used by]: <date>

Look at that. Then look at the calendar on your wall. Then you know whether it's okay to give it to someone.

OK, so we've learned that the reason they may not have broken the law by dumping chemicals over their food garbage is that their country treats rain runoff, thus taking away the environmental hazard. Thanks for settling that.

Now, I wonder how that country feels about setting out poison for human beings.

Very good question. It might be tricky to construct a case against those employees, as they placed the garbage in bins on private grounds, and put up signs warning that the contents were not fit for human consumption...

True, but even the new ones are being built with just one system, and a treatment plant linking it to the rivers.
Old habits die hard. I'm sure your countries have learned how to work with such a system over time. I know you're not all dying of cholera over there. Neither are we with our system.

Oh, and the Long Island oysters and scallops are slowly recovering too, btw, since the disposal regulations were put in place. Though it is unlikely the fisheries will ever come back.

You only need to know how to read. The dates are stamped right on the containers.

"Sell by: <date>"

"Use by [or Best if used by]: <date>

Look at that. Then look at the calendar on your wall. Then you know whether it's okay to give it to someone.

I thought you said that most foods would only have the sell-by on the package?

But it does point to an interesting thought : should people, homeless or other, be allowed to take goods (especially food) that has been thrown away by supermarkets?


Oooh, this bothers me so much. In short, YES, they should be allowed.

I worked at a supermarket for a year, and couldn't believe the amount of food thrown away every day. Day old bread...mountains of it...bruised but still edible produce, etc etc. Locked up in dumpsters, and any attempts to 'steal' this precious waste brought down the wrath. A single mom I knew was fired for taking a loaf of bread that was about to be tossed out.

I understand, to a certain extent, that 'giving food away' might cause people to stop buying food, waiting to dumpster dive instead, therefore causing there to be more waste, and more dumpster diving, and less sales.

But seriously now.

Food Not Bombs spent months upon months negotiating with certain chains here to take the trashed produce for use in their various projects. There was so much resistance...but it's not as though you're going to find the middle class frequenting the shelters FNB doles out meals at. This was not in any way going to undercut business for the supermarkets...nor HAS it, since they grudgingly agreed.

That we could sanction the waste of food, the miserly retention of 'garbage'...the successful prosecutions based on property rights to trashed food...bothers me so much it actually makes me froth around the mouth a little. What a sick fucking society we live in.

Very good question. It might be tricky to construct a case against those employees, as they placed the garbage in bins on private grounds, and put up signs warning that the contents were not fit for human consumption...
I'm sure that in the US, it would not make a difference. The deliberate creation of a risk to human life is not acceptable, especially when locks or other physical barriers could have done the same job. This action on the part of these individuals is just morally depraved. They went beyond a lack of concern for the wellbeing of others, to showing a willingness to create a danger of death or serious injury to others.

I thought you said that most foods would only have the sell-by on the package?
No, I didn't. Read again.

Perishable foods get the sell-by. Non-perishables get the use-by.

True, but even the new ones are being built with just one system, and a treatment plant linking it to the rivers.This isn't actually true...

Old habits die hard. I'm sure your countries have learned how to work with such a system over time. I know you're not all dying of cholera over there. Neither are we with our system.

Oh, and the Long Island oysters and scallops are slowly recovering too, btw, since the disposal regulations were put in place. Though it is unlikely the fisheries will ever come back.

Well, I remember there being massive problems in the late 70s, early 80s, when contaminated water from farming and industry ended up straight in the rivers. The Rhine was practically dead at one point.
There are now water treatment plants not only where city waste water meets the rivers, but along the rivers themselves to keep the water clean. And there are rather strict regulations regading industry waste water.
So many of the rivers are recovering these days.

This isn't actually true...

No? I've never heard any different... what's changed?

No? I've never heard any different... what's changed?
A project in Emmelshausen. (http://kos-live.ionas.de/werkedirekt/abwasser/allgemeines/umweltbelange_naturgefahren/nachhaltigkeit_der_abwasserbeseitigung_dokumentation_der_veranstaltung_in_emmelshausen_30_10_2001/atvdvwk2001.pdf.phtml?PHPSESSID=033b2e76eaae6aece28bd58046d4fe7c)
Rainwater is specifically mentioned as receiving no treatment before reintroduction. Separating them is actually not vital, as Mur said, but it saves costs. Rainwater is generally clean enough to not require treatment in the first place, so treating it wastes valuable resources and raises costs in the long run, whereas installing separate drains merely increases the amount of initial investment required.

are we in some sort of famine? what kind of sick fuck honestly eats Lidl food?!

I cannot emphasis enough that the one thing this "food" needs is cleaning products

I'm a bit in two minds... one the one hand I don't see how those supermarkets can object to somebody taking what they so obviously don't want any more.
On the other hand, while the rubbish is still on their premisses it's their call really, isn't it?

In general the stuff is also beyind its expiry date. Those dates are there for a reason.
Then again, if someone is willing to take the risk..

are we in some sort of famine? what kind of sick fuck honestly eats Lidl food?!

Lidl food in general is vastly superior to the "food" produced by e.g. McDonalds ;) It is just bland.

It's not the store itself that did it, but a number of employees apparently working independently of management.But it was mentioned that there were warning signs posted. This tells me that the "employees" were actually of ranks up to at least individual-store-level management. In fact, I would venture to guess that it was ordered by the management of the locations involved.

The main headquarters might not have known, but these stores probably have a lot of leeway to make location-specific policy (store-manager level decisions). Otherwise their Main Office would be crushed under all the micromanagement it would have to do, just because of normal day-to-day decisions that need to be made at individual stores. Unfortunately, that also means that something really bad can go on for quite a while at store level, before the headquarters people realize it.

And, I doubt that the headquarters, at least at the regional level, was really unaware. I'm sure they come and check out the stores on occasion, just like here (US). And there were signs! So either the HQ/Regional HQ people decided to "not see" them, or they didn't think the signs were serious. But truly not having any clue about it at all? Doubtful.


No baggers. I don't know anywhere in Europe that actually employs them... Tescos sometimes has people doing it collecting for charity.That's a shame. Bagger is a dying position here in the US, too...less and less stores employ them. :( It's too bad; that's one of the only low-level jobs I know of that has a hope of not totally sucking (the suck-factor is largely dependent on whether the low-level management is bad or good).

Fergi America;14210521']But it was mentioned that there were warning signs posted. This tells me that the "employees" were actually of ranks up to at least individual-store-level management. In fact, I would venture to guess that it was ordered by the management of the locations involved.

The main headquarters might not have known, but these stores probably have a lot of leeway to make location-specific policy (store-manager level decisions). Otherwise their Main Office would be crushed under all the micromanagement it would have to do, just because of normal day-to-day decisions that need to be made at individual stores. Unfortunately, that also means that something really bad can go on for quite a while at store level, before the headquarters people realize it.

And, I doubt that the headquarters, at least at the regional level, was really unaware. I'm sure they come and check out the stores on occasion, just like here (US). And there were signs! So either the HQ/Regional HQ people decided to "not see" them, or they didn't think the signs were serious. But truly not having any clue about it at all? Doubtful.

We're very much shooting in the dark here. Those signs could simply be ones saying 'food not suitable for human consumption' or something. Which if the food was off could be there anyway.

The only reason I can think of why supermarkets object to people going through their dumpsters is that some of those who do leave a mess behind and the market has to clean up their premises.

That said, and mind you, I don't even think that's a good reason, poisoning their trash is a whole different league of bad.

I mean, what's Lidl gonna do next? First they spy on their own employees, now they're poisoning those who eat their trash - the next thing they will think of is shooting those customers who want to leave the supermarket again.

"Lidl lohnt sich" my ass. Fucking not worth anything.


I wonder, however, whether it would've been acceptable to put rat-poison into the dumpsters. After all, left-over food does attract critters, hence nobody could really have complained if they had done that (including a warning on the bin).

A project in Emmelshausen. (http://kos-live.ionas.de/werkedirekt/abwasser/allgemeines/umweltbelange_naturgefahren/nachhaltigkeit_der_abwasserbeseitigung_dokumentation_der_veranstaltung_in_emmelshausen_30_10_2001/atvdvwk2001.pdf.phtml?PHPSESSID=033b2e76eaae6aece28bd58046d4fe7c)
Rainwater is specifically mentioned as receiving no treatment before reintroduction. Separating them is actually not vital, as Mur said, but it saves costs. Rainwater is generally clean enough to not require treatment in the first place, so treating it wastes valuable resources and raises costs in the long run, whereas installing separate drains merely increases the amount of initial investment required.
Separating them is "vital" because you don't want untreated sewage flowing out of the system. It's to keep sewage out of the run-off drains, not to keep rainwater out of the sewers.

Separating them is "vital" because you don't want untreated sewage flowing out of the system. It's to keep sewage out of the run-off drains, not to keep rainwater out of the sewers.If all water is treated, you don't have untreated sewage flowing out of the system, because ALL water would get treated, whether it was municipal wastewater or collected rainwater. Systems that have a separate storm drain do so to reduce the volume of water they have to treat. Treating sewage is vital, but separating it from rainwater isn't "vital", it serves to reduce costs.

I'd like to point out lidl's history on previous matters of...decency

http://www.union-network.org/Unisite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Lidl_demanded_armbands.htm

Lidl food in general is vastly superior to the "food" produced by e.g. McDonalds ;) It is just bland.

only McDonalds food products come with English on the packaging :p

If all water is treated, you don't have untreated sewage flowing out of the system, because ALL water would get treated, whether it was municipal wastewater or collected rainwater. Systems that have a separate storm drain do so to reduce the volume of water they have to treat. Treating sewage is vital, but separating it from rainwater isn't "vital", it serves to reduce costs.
Oh, I see. Yes, that makes sense for why a city would [edit] be developing a new system that does have a separate rain-run-off system. Here it's been the way we've always done it, since modern sewer systems were created.

I'd like to point out lidl's history on previous matters of...decency

http://www.union-network.org/Unisite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Lidl_demanded_armbands.htm



only McDonalds food products come with English on the packaging :p
Holy shit. They make Wal-mart (where Satan shops for holiday gifts) sound like angels of civic goodwill.

Ok, I just happened across a most remarkable bit of news. Unfortunately, I've only got a German text on it : http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,590329,00.html

To give a short summary, the employees of a Lidl supermarket in Stockholm have for a short period of time been poisoning out-of-date food with cleaning chemicals before putting them out in the dumpster. They wanted to keep homeless people from taking the food once it's been thrown out.
The company issued an apology for this in the meantime.

But it does point to an interesting thought : should people, homeless or other, be allowed to take goods (especially food) that has been thrown away by supermarkets?
I know there are some people in the UK who will get most of their weekly "shopping" from dumpsters outside Tesco's and Sainsbury's... they usually go after the supermarket has closed for the night. I've seen a documentary the other day, for some people the motive is simply to reduce the waste of these supermarkets, who will throw out things like multi-packs of chocolates for no other reason that the outer package being broken (the chocolate itself is still nice and clean within two more layers of packaging...)

I'm a bit in two minds... one the one hand I don't see how those supermarkets can object to somebody taking what they so obviously don't want any more.
On the other hand, while the rubbish is still on their premisses it's their call really, isn't it?

This seems selfishness of the highest order really. Why would anybody object to somebody takeing what they have clearly thrown away?

I am shocked by this story to deliberatly introduce a substance to a foodstuff in oder to mke the food toxic is morally repugnant and simply plain mean sprited of those responsible.

The issue of runoff water contamination is a serious one in paticular sewage and fertilizers can cause huge damage to a water eocosystem through eutrophication. In relation to toxic cotaminats filter-feeders (shellfish in paticular beacause they cannot move from the source of contamination) act as bioaccumulators of many toxic chemicals in water especially when the contamination is of a chronic nature.

Holy shit. They make Wal-mart (where Satan shops for holiday gifts) sound like angels of civic goodwill.

fortunately Tesco is liberating the oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe as we speak

*shows invasion map of the New British Empire* (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/TESCO_International.jpg)

as a result in the UK it is prohibited to harvest shellfish at certain times of the year to prevent accumulated toxins poisoning people who eat the shellfish.

I thought we cleared that up after the big effort to get the Thames clean enough for salmon?

I'd like to point out lidl's history on previous matters of...decency

http://www.union-network.org/Unisite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Lidl_demanded_armbands.htm



only McDonalds food products come with English on the packaging :p
Armbands, eh?

Would they happen to look like this?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Lidl.jpg

I'm amazed. All this could have been avoided by donating this stuff.

a friend of mine worked in a local Tesco for a few months. they threw away so much stuff that they got themselves an in-house incinerator to stop the dustbin-foraging problem. my friend's job, most days, was to drive the forklift and put all the crates/pallettes of out-of-date food into the incinerator and operate it. of course, a lot of out-of-date food ended up, somehow, in his and his coworkers' pockets, but still... this is a vastly inefficient practice. you'd think the management of that branch would be hauled up on this wastefullness, considering it can't be efficient for the bottom line, but no - other employees said it had always been like that, for years. just my litle anecdote, but i bet there are figures out there for the amount of food and packaging that the supermarkets waste.

donating this stuff to charity would be an awfully good idea, even if some people would end up with awfully odd meal combinations :P


edit:
Oooh, this bothers me so much. In short, YES, they should be allowed.

I worked at a supermarket for a year, and couldn't believe the amount of food thrown away every day. Day old bread...mountains of it...bruised but still edible produce, etc etc. Locked up in dumpsters, and any attempts to 'steal' this precious waste brought down the wrath. A single mom I knew was fired for taking a loaf of bread that was about to be tossed out.

I understand, to a certain extent, that 'giving food away' might cause people to stop buying food, waiting to dumpster dive instead, therefore causing there to be more waste, and more dumpster diving, and less sales.

But seriously now.

Food Not Bombs spent months upon months negotiating with certain chains here to take the trashed produce for use in their various projects. There was so much resistance...but it's not as though you're going to find the middle class frequenting the shelters FNB doles out meals at. This was not in any way going to undercut business for the supermarkets...nor HAS it, since they grudgingly agreed.

That we could sanction the waste of food, the miserly retention of 'garbage'...the successful prosecutions based on property rights to trashed food...bothers me so much it actually makes me froth around the mouth a little. What a sick fucking society we live in.
i like you

i like you
As you should when Sin is making this much sense and puts it into such nice words.

You doin' okay, dude?

donating this stuff to charity would be an awfully good idea, even if some people would end up with awfully odd meal combinations :P

I am quite certain that donating food that is past its expiry date is against the law in most European countries.

If the police can go through my trash and take things without a warrant on the grounds that I threw it away and thus it's not even mine anymore.......then homeless people can have my trash.

Either it's yours or it isn't, and I think it isn't.

I went through a time when I was scavenging. Luckily I found stores that would save up the food for me and box it so I didn't have to dumpster dive. The use-by date was usually that day, and often the sell by date gave me a few days to use it (as if I had any way to keep it cold anyway :rolleyes:)

I am quite certain that donating food that is past its expiry date is against the law in most European countries.I've been looking at the charitable organization that does this stuff in Germany and apparently they only take stuff that's almost run out, but hasn't passed the date. I know plenty of stores don't sell stuff that is about to run out (relatively speaking) at full price or at all. I got a good deal on a bunch of Yes cakes on Tuesday that were good until December, for instance.

Guess what? There'll be people desperate to eat the thrown-out food even if they did cover it in bleach and such.

Even if Lidl's actions aren't outright illegal, they're AT BEST a gray area of dubious legality.

Its the supermarkets food to do what it wants with. If it wants to throw the food on the walls, wipe their ass with it or pour dishwashing detergent on it, its something that is their property and thier own business. Who is anyone to tell them what they may or may not do with the legal items they legally posses? One should automatically assume that if you found it in a dumpster it has a pretty decent chance of having something on it thats not good for you in the first place, if you choose to take that risk anyway then its your problem not the grocery store who should be able to do anything they want to their own garbage as long as it follows all local sanitation laws.

But they only poisoned it a Lidl bit!

As a counter image to this, back in cruel, heartless New York City, where I'm from, food stores and restaurants were in the habit of actually setting aside food, not only to donate to charity kitchens, but also to give directly to any local homeless who might hang around the area, especially the ones who were really not doing well. It was very common to see deli employees going around their local streets, delivering coffee and sandwiches to whatever regular beggars were in the area, or supermarket employees giving food at their back loading areas to homeless people they knew from around.

It's a blessing to help those in need. It doesn't hurt a business's image to be seen as kind and generous.

I'll say it again: The word for these Lidl people is "bastards."


The grocery store I used to work at as a teenager used to do that. Then one of the homeless came in and robbed the register one night (24 hour store). After that we called the police on the homeless and hosed down any spots they might sleep before going to night register mode. ( 1 cashier and 2 stockers)

The grocery store I used to work at as a teenager used to do that. Then one of the homeless came in and robbed the register one night (24 hour store).

There is a saying about that; Let no good deed go unpunished.

Yikes. an "apology" you say? How 'bout "On trial for conspiracy to commit murder" instead?
People, even Homeless people, are not vermin to be exterminated.

Yikes. an "apology" you say? How 'bout "On trial for conspiracy to commit murder" instead?
People, even Homeless people, are not vermin to be exterminated.

its mild poisoning. its to run them off dissuade them from camping around the dumpster and running off the paying customers.

Yikes. an "apology" you say? How 'bout "On trial for conspiracy to commit murder" instead?
People, even Homeless people, are not vermin to be exterminated.

The garbage can is not a buffet, its in the dumpster because for whatever reason its bad food. If a homeless person chooses to ignore the clear indications that its bad food then hes clearly and obviously taking the risk into his own hands.

If i throw away a razor blade and a bum cuts himself in my garbage on it should i also be arrested for assault?

Ok, I just happened across a most remarkable bit of news. Unfortunately, I've only got a German text on it : http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,590329,00.html

To give a short summary, the employees of a Lidl supermarket in Stockholm have for a short period of time been poisoning out-of-date food with cleaning chemicals before putting them out in the dumpster. They wanted to keep homeless people from taking the food once it's been thrown out.
The company issued an apology for this in the meantime.

But it does point to an interesting thought : should people, homeless or other, be allowed to take goods (especially food) that has been thrown away by supermarkets?
I know there are some people in the UK who will get most of their weekly "shopping" from dumpsters outside Tesco's and Sainsbury's... they usually go after the supermarket has closed for the night. I've seen a documentary the other day, for some people the motive is simply to reduce the waste of these supermarkets, who will throw out things like multi-packs of chocolates for no other reason that the outer package being broken (the chocolate itself is still nice and clean within two more layers of packaging...)

I'm a bit in two minds... one the one hand I don't see how those supermarkets can object to somebody taking what they so obviously don't want any more.
On the other hand, while the rubbish is still on their premisses it's their call really, isn't it?

As someone who is usually poor but can still afford to buy food, I like it when the supermarket drastically discounts such package-damaged or out-of-date food. (I often ask for and get a discount if I find damaged stock which looks OK to me on the shelves.) I ate out of dumpsters years ago, but nowdays they usually seem to have padlocks on them.

I also think supermarkets should donate stuff which is still OK but which would undercut their sales to discount, to charities who distribute it free. I can see that people getting good food for free by going to the "back shop" undercuts their sales. Hell, I take stuff from dumpsters even now, if I see it there, and spend the money on something else.

Deliberately ruining the food so it's not fit even for pigs is disgraceful. If recycling it in some way is too expensive for the shops, and putting locks on their dumpster or paying an employee to drop it off at a charity is too expensive then they should leave it in the skip undamaged -- making it poisonous will turn out far more expensive when someone eats it anyway, possibly not noticing under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

its mild poisoning. its to run them off dissuade them from camping around the dumpster and running off the paying customers.

What happens if some little kid gets hold of it? What's mild for an adult is deadly to a toddler. Who decides what "Mild" is, anyway? the guy poisoning the food? did they hire a poison expert to set the levels so it wouldn't kill someone with an existing condition?

NO.

It's deliberate Poisoning, aimed at People. The bastards at that store should be FRIED by the justice system.

If i throw away a razor blade and a bum cuts himself in my garbage on it should i also be arrested for assault?

No. If you deliberately made your garbage dangerous for the bum, then yes.

Question of intent.

No. If you deliberately made your garbage dangerous for the bum, then yes.

Question of intent.

So who gets to make the rules what i may or may not do with my own foostuff and items inside my own home or business? If i wanted to wipe my ass on a case of Hostess Twinkees and reseal them and throw them away in the garbage your going to tell me i dont have that right and i should be arrested and thrown in jail?

To give a short summary, the employees of a Lidl supermarket in Stockholm have for a short period of time been poisoning out-of-date food with cleaning chemicals before putting them out in the dumpster. They wanted to keep homeless people from taking the food once it's been thrown out.
I'm not sure if the real reason was that they hated the homeless and all that stuff, or that they didn't want someone to get poisoned by the food, then sue them - so they made it obviously inedible with what would produce distinctive smell and taste.



But it does point to an interesting thought : should people, homeless or other, be allowed to take goods (especially food) that has been thrown away by supermarkets?
Third world countries usually have "second freshness" markets, which sell foods that are past their formal expiration date, but still within the safety margin, i.e. not actually spoiled.

Most food storage time limits are intentionally specified as a half of what they actually are, or even less, since it's cheaper to throw away some still good food than to pay off the lawsuit in that 1 in a 1000 case where it did spoil prematurely.

Some foods actually have an actual expiration date of many years, and can only degrade in taste properties. But of course there's always that 1 in a 1000 chance, and it increases with time. Frozen foods can be stored indefinitely, for many millenia at least, if they're kept frozen; they still have formal limits to account for the case of defreezing. Vodka, obviously, can be stored indefinitely even at room temperature. So is any other alcohol stronger than beer, they prize these 1700s wines for a reason.

So who gets to make the rules what i may or may not do with my own foostuff and items inside my own home or business? If i wanted to wipe my ass on a case of Hostess Twinkees and reseal them and throw them away in the garbage your going to tell me i dont have that right and i should be arrested and thrown in jail?

If the intent to trick someone into eating your faeces could be proven, YES.

When a company does that regularly, it's policy. Intent can be proven. The law should hit them hard.

If the intent to trick someone into eating your faeces could be proven, YES.
.

Theres an even better way to not eat feces. Stay out of other peoples garbage.

Theres an even better way to not eat feces. Stay out of other peoples garbage.

And the Coogee Bay Hotel. (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24619496-5005961,00.html)

If the intent to trick someone into eating your faeces could be proven, YES.

Is it really THAT hard to tell the difference between a nice AIDS-free swimming pool and a stinking infested dumpster?

That's Capitalism for you. Even garbage belongs to someone.

EDIT: Which is why putting a lock on it is the more appropriate way of keeping it out of anyone else's hands. I am still very unhappy with food which could feed a pig, and usually a human, going into landfill.

What happens if some little kid gets hold of it? What's mild for an adult is deadly to a toddler. Who decides what "Mild" is, anyway? the guy poisoning the food? did they hire a poison expert to set the levels so it wouldn't kill someone with an existing condition?

likely the same people who determined the food was expired and unsafe to eat to begin with.
NO.

It's deliberate Poisoning, aimed at People. The bastards at that store should be FRIED by the justice system.

More likely they should be given an award for discouraging the homeless from eating unsafe food.

In general the stuff is also beyind its expiry date. Those dates are there for a reason.
Then again, if someone is willing to take the risk..

Nah, the dates are set vastly on the low side. It's quite safe to eat stuff which out of date, depending on the inherent perishability of the food.

Ironically, the dates are set so low to help protect the supermarkets, as it minimises the chance of food spoiling before it is sold and someone getting sick from it.

likely the same people who determined the food was expired and unsafe to eat to begin with.

More likely they should be given an award for discouraging the homeless from eating unsafe food.

The way they determine what to throw out is simple --- look at the 'sell by' date, chuck out anything where that's today, and therefore it'll be out of date tomorrow. Not by doing an expert examination of each piece of food. They're wage workers, low end employees, not microbiology and toxicology specialists.

As has been mentioned several times already, food disposed of by supermarkets is done so several days before it is likely to actually be unsafe, in order to help ensure that it doesn't spoil while on the shelf. It is in no way unsafe to eat, as long as a little sense is applied.

There is a very major difference between disposing of potentially unsafe food, which someone then chooses to eat and gets sick from, and actively poisoning food to prevent humans eating it. In one case, any sickness or death is wholly the fault of the person who ate it, while in the other you are actively ensuring this will happen. It damn well should be punished.

As has been mentioned several times already, food disposed of by supermarkets is done so several days before it is likely to actually be unsafe, in order to help ensure that it doesn't spoil while on the shelf. It is in no way unsafe to eat, as long as a little sense is applied.

There is a very major difference between disposing of potentially unsafe food, which someone then chooses to eat and gets sick from, and actively poisoning food to prevent humans eating it. In one case, any sickness or death is wholly the fault of the person who ate it, while in the other you are actively ensuring this will happen. It damn well should be punished.

It was also pointed out it can go bad early.

Sense dictates not to eat food from a dumpster.
my faith in the homeless to apply said sense is minimal at best.

If the food smells/looks/taste like bleach or other cleaning agents common sense would say DO NOT EAT IT.
If the said homeless cant apply the common sense not to eat it then I doubt some rot will dissuade him either.
now a bad case of the runs maybe.

I also think supermarkets should donate stuff which is still OK but which would undercut their sales to discount, to charities who distribute it free. I can see that people getting good food for free by going to the "back shop" undercuts their sales. Hell, I take stuff from dumpsters even now, if I see it there, and spend the money on something else.
I like the way that the Migros and Coop ( the two major supermarket chains in Switzerland ) handle things: Migros collects at the end of the day all food thats gone ''bad'' and gives it directly to charity. Coop does quite often the same but I think it's not official policy. And on top of that they try( at least in Zurich and Bern ) to keep food and the other waste even in the dumpster seperate, so that if someone wants to take food from the dumpster, they dont risk eating contaminated food and don't make a mess by burrowing through the whole pile of garbage.

But they only poisoned it a Lidl bit!
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Music/battery-062.gif

That's Capitalism for you. Even garbage belongs to someone.
EDIT: Which is why putting a lock on it is the more appropriate way of keeping it out of anyone else's hands. I am still very unhappy with food which could feed a pig, and usually a human, going into landfill.
That's overproduction for you. US produces more food than it needs and than its importers need. But the government wants to keep strong farming in US, so it protects the farmer from resultant price drop by targeted subsidies.

Thus the artificial high price keeps food from being exported to particularly poor nations, which is politically needed to protect their local food industries (really we don't want to deal with an African baby boom which would occur if we fed them; 1.4 billion Chinese is bad enough). There's pretty much nowhere for it to go. However, just dumping it "because it's excess" would cause criticism.

Strict food safety regulations then serve to keep the waste levels high, so the excess food can be dumped for one piece in a shipment failing overly strict control, or for passing an expiration date set with a needlessly excessive safety margin.


It's also why biofuels are subsidized, the main reason is not to save the oil, but to save the farmers, while having them produce something which is at least burned in engines and not dumped to rot.

It was also pointed out it can go bad early.

In which case some of it has already been sold. And in that case, a public recall must be issued. Just look at how few public recalls are issued, for a sense of what a tiny minority of cases your argument relies on.

Food which is seriously unsafe (to the extent of containing toxic chemicals, eg melamine) should be publicly recalled, and stocks disposed of securely.


Sense dictates not to eat food from a dumpster.
my faith in the homeless to apply said sense is minimal at best.

If the food smells/looks/taste like bleach or other cleaning agents common sense would say DO NOT EAT IT.
If the said homeless cant apply the common sense not to eat it then I doubt some rot will dissuade him either.
now a bad case of the runs maybe.

You are still saying the same thing. "Because the food may be unsafe, making it more unsafe is a good idea."

Do you have any objection to locks?

its mild poisoning. its to run them off dissuade them from camping around the dumpster and running off the paying customers.
Are you kidding?

I'm finding it somewhat scary, even... As you said, if I had been in that position and wanted to avoid homeless people raiding my bins, I'd donate the stuff. Many charities will even come and pick it up on your doorstep.
But to even think of pouring chemicals over it to make it inedible... wow. Sick mindset.
No kidding I mean yeah I can see not wanting the liability or disruption of them on the premises (though personally I feel that the plight of starving people more important then disruption) but what sort of sick fuck Poisons the food seriously. Make it harder to get I can see, try to discourage stealing

But POISON?

It was also pointed out it can go bad early.

Sense dictates not to eat food from a dumpster.
my faith in the homeless to apply said sense is minimal at best.

If the food smells/looks/taste like bleach or other cleaning agents common sense would say DO NOT EAT IT.
If the said homeless cant apply the common sense not to eat it then I doubt some rot will dissuade him either.
now a bad case of the runs maybe.

Indeed food can go bad early. But the entire point of the system as applied is to make sure it doesn't. Shall we have a quick lesson in distributions?

Food doesn't suddenly go bad on a particular day. The chance of it going bad increases as it is kept for longer. Now, supermarkets aren't going to keep it on the shelf until that chance reaches 50%. No way. The 'sell by' dates are normally at about a 95% confidence interval or so --- the chance is 2.5% it will have gone bad by then.

This leads to two things --- firstly, it is very unlikely that food will spoil while on the shelf, which exposes the supermarket to potential lawsuits for selling food that is unfit for consumption. But secondly, it means that dumpstered food is also good to eat in most cases, not an inherently bad idea. This applies even more when you take into account all the packaging wrapped around most food --- if you pull out a loaf of bread in plastic packaging, it'll be uncontaminated and at most a bit stale.

So no, sense does not dictate not to eat food from a dumpster. Food freshly thrown away by a supermarket is, in all probability, still good to consume, just slightly too risky for them to sell. As a result, it provides a reasonable and cheap source of food for those who need it, and is perfectly safe if you apply a little discretion in what you take. Stick to food in the packaging, and don't risk too much with milk and meat, unless it's still definitely cold to the touch. If you're dubious about it, don't eat it.

As for your statements about 'the homeless', I'll let the rest of NS --- particularly those members who have been (or are) homeless --- shoot those down for themselves.

But directly poisoning food that you know may be eaten by other humans is still (or should be) illegal. If you think about it, consider leaving a plate with poisoned cakes on it out in the lobby of a hotel. While you haven't directly told anyone 'eat these', you know people are fairly likely to do so, and have directly added poison to harm those who do so. That's an action intended to harm another human, and damn well should be punished.

In which case some of it has already been sold. And in that case, a public recall must be issued. Just look at how few public recalls are issued, for a sense of what a tiny minority of cases your argument relies on.

Food which is seriously unsafe (to the extent of containing toxic chemicals, eg melamine) should be publicly recalled, and stocks disposed of securely.




You are still saying the same thing. "Because the food may be unsafe, making it more unsafe is a good idea."

Do you have any objection to locks?

locks can be broke.

not only is the food made unsafe, It is made to be obviously unsafe by the discoloration,smell and taste. I assume you know the difference between cleaning agent taste and sugar.

Its just like putting a bittering agent in antifreeze.

In which case some of it has already been sold. And in that case, a public recall must be issued. Just look at how few public recalls are issued, for a sense of what a tiny minority of cases your argument relies on.

Question remains: is Lidl allowed to let the food fall into the hands of beggars or not ? Or is the company legally obligated to dispose of food beyond the legally determined date in ways that do not include "the beggars tummy" ?

Or to rephrase: if Lidl does not stop beggars from entering their dumpster - are they committing a crime ?

locks can be broke.

not only is the food made unsafe, It is made to be obviously unsafe by the discoloration,smell and taste. I assume you know the difference between cleaning agent taste and sugar.

Its just like putting a bittering agent in antifreeze.
And I assume you're blowing your entire argument out your ass. Your remarks about what the homeless should have the sense to do or not sound like someone who has never known real hunger. And your remarks about how someone must have measured how much they could poison people before they dosed the tossed food are just idiotic.

Question remains: is Lidl allowed to let the food fall into the hands of beggars or not ? Or is the company legally obligated to dispose of food beyond the legally determined date in ways that do not include "the beggars tummy" ?

Or to rephrase: if Lidl does not stop beggars from entering their dumpster - are they committing a crime ?

Good question. I would be inclined to say "No, they don't".

They have indicated they can no longer sell it. If someone else wishes to voluntarily take it, that person also accepts the risk of it being unfit for consumption. However, that does not mean that deliberately making it unfit for consumption is acceptable --- far from it.

Question remains: is Lidl allowed to let the food fall into the hands of beggars or not ? Or is the company legally obligated to dispose of food beyond the legally determined date in ways that do not include "the beggars tummy" ?

Or to rephrase: if Lidl does not stop beggars from entering their dumpster - are they committing a crime ?
Ah, but Lidl is NOT stopping them from entering the dumpster. They are just setting a trap for anyone who does enter the dumpster.

That's overproduction for you. US produces more food than it needs and than its importers need. But the government wants to keep strong farming in US, so it protects the farmer from resultant price drop by targeted subsidies.

True enough. The complexities of the tax regime also favour big farmers over small -- they've got an accounting department. Also they buy in large enough quantity to dictate price, and sell in large enough quantity to form long term deals with processors.

But at the end of the line, the real winners are retail chains. Small chains and individual shops can't strike supply contracts as effectively with big suppliers. Even without government encouraging oversupply, capitalism was going to go this way.

Thus the artificial high price keeps food from being exported to particularly poor nations, which is politically needed to protect their local food industries (really we don't want to deal with an African baby boom which would occur if we fed them; 1.4 billion Chinese is bad enough). There's pretty much nowhere for it to go. However, just dumping it "because it's excess" would cause criticism.

Poor countries would also have a better market available to them if Europe and the US were less self-sufficient in food. Since growing food is one of the few things a developing economy can do well ...

Strict food safety regulations then serve to keep the waste levels high, so the excess food can be dumped for one piece in a shipment failing overly strict control, or for passing an expiration date set with a needlessly excessive safety margin.

The public's fear of bad food serves that end, yes. Are you calling "conspiracy"?

It's also why biofuels are subsidized, the main reason is not to save the oil, but to save the farmers, while having them produce something which is at least burned in engines and not dumped to rot.

Yeah, it doesn't save that much oil huh? But one could blame fuel subsidies to farmers as well for that.

Nah, the dates are set vastly on the low side. It's quite safe to eat stuff which out of date, depending on the inherent perishability of the food.
It's a secret to most people that expiration dates deliberately have excessive safety margins.

Even of those that guess, 90% don't know the real storage requirements and expiration dates. No, make it 99% - real expiration date should be calculated by formulas involving temperature and humidity. Even the difference between two fridges can change the storage time 5-10 times; in one it will go bad in 3 days, in other in a months. So most people still follow the official dates.


As has been mentioned several times already, food disposed of by supermarkets is done so several days before it is likely to actually be unsafe, in order to help ensure that it doesn't spoil while on the shelf. It is in no way unsafe to eat, as long as a little sense is applied.
As I've said, it's not that simple.

It's one thing to store the food in a store fridge, and another in a dumpster, a warm, humid, and bacteria-ridden environment. Food will get spoiled there very quickly. And knowing modern persecutionist legal practice, someone could actually decide to sue the store for that.



There is a very major difference between disposing of potentially unsafe food, which someone then chooses to eat and gets sick from, and actively poisoning food to prevent humans eating it. In one case, any sickness or death is wholly the fault of the person who ate it, while in the other you are actively ensuring this will happen. It damn well should be punished.
Let's imagine that I have a car that looks fine, but I know is unsafe, due to brakes and steering failing at highway speeds.
Of course, I can take it to the junkyard outright. But what I'd really do is crash it into a rock and do some target practice on it, to make sure it looks unusable and white trash won't buy it from the junk to cause an accident on a road later.

However, obviously, crashing that car made it even more dangerous, now the steering is not there at all, and anyone driving it is guaranteed to crash before leaving the junkyard.
So, should I then be punished for deliberately ensuring that driving the car would immediately crash it?

Question remains: is Lidl allowed to let the food fall into the hands of beggars or not ? Or is the company legally obligated to dispose of food beyond the legally determined date in ways that do not include "the beggars tummy" ?

I think it comes down to their reasons for throwing food away. If some of the food is known to be unsafe I think it has to be kept away from people who would break the law to get it.

I think that because "stealing garbage" does not seem to me a crime on the level of "negligent poisoning." (Garbage has negative value to whoever throws it away, odd kinda crime that one.) But the law may see it differently ...

If the food is being thrown away WITHOUT the knowledge that it is unsafe (eg stale bread) then it should be made available for someone to eat if they want it.

Or to rephrase: if Lidl does not stop beggars from entering their dumpster - are they committing a crime ?

I don't know German law at all.

Again, if some of that food is really unsafe (ie contains poisons) then I guess it's a crime.

And I assume you're blowing your entire argument out your ass. Your remarks about what the homeless should have the sense to do or not sound like someone who has never known real hunger. And your remarks about how someone must have measured how much they could poison people before they dosed the tossed food are just idiotic.

It is not the job of the grocery store to feed the homeless.
More over the food may be unsafe especially if it has sat in a dumpster all day during the summer heat.

And while it would be better if a chemical was made specially for that purpose the cleaning agent discolors, and bitters the food to discourage consumption. Its just like using a bittering agent in poisonous chemicals that happen to taste good(anti freeze).

what bothers me is why haven't we made agents just for this purpose and why haven't we mandated this be done.

It's a secret to most people that expiration dates deliberately have excessive safety margins.

Even of those that guess, 90% don't know the real storage requirements and expiration dates. No, make it 99% - real expiration date should be calculated by formulas involving temperature and humidity. Even the difference between two fridges can change the storage time 5-10 times; in one it will go bad in 3 days, in other in a months. So most people still follow the official dates.

As I've said, it's not that simple.

It's one thing to store the food in a store fridge, and another in a dumpster, a warm, humid, and bacteria-ridden environment. Food will get spoiled there very quickly. And knowing modern persecutionist legal practice, someone could actually decide to sue the store for that.

Two separate issues here. The first is how fast food goes bad in a dumpster. That's definitely a lot quicker than normally, but is not so fast as to make it go bad the moment it's thrown in. If, for example, the store shuts at 10pm, and you pull that day's disposals out of the dumpster at midnight, that won't have made a major difference to it.

Having said that, yes, you do need to exercise more caution with dumpstered food. Meat and dairy products are not a particularly good idea, while bread or heavily packaged and long lasting foods, tins, etc, should generally be fine after a few hours in there. With some practice, one can get pretty good at telling if something is 'off' before eating it, and that combined with common sense makes it fairly safe.

Second issue is suing stores for getting sick from eating dumpstered food. That's a ridiculous idea, provided the store don't actively make it unfit for consumption. Basically, if the store doesn't actively make the food harmful, and someone gets sick from eating it having knowingly acquired it when it was being disposed due to age, that's the person's fault, not the stores.


Let's imagine that I have a car that looks fine, but I know is unsafe, due to brakes and steering failing at highway speeds.
Of course, I can take it to the junkyard outright. But what I'd really do is crash it into a rock and do some target practice on it, to make sure it looks unusable and white trash won't buy it from the junk to cause an accident on a road later.

However, obviously, crashing that car made it even more dangerous, now the steering is not there at all, and anyone driving it is guaranteed to crash before leaving the junkyard.
So, should I then be punished for deliberately ensuring that driving the car would immediately crash it?

Ooh, nice. Unfortunately, the case isn't directly analagous, that's certain. So shall we construct ourselves a nice analogy? Your original car is basically the out-of-date food. The act of sabotaging it is equivalent to poisoning the food. But crucially, someone buying it from the junkyard is not the same as someone fishing it out of the dumpster.

To arrive at a situation analagous to poisoning dumpstered food, you would have to leave the sabotaged car, with the keys in the ignition, in a fairly easy to find place. In the situation as you presented it, however, the fault lies with the junkyard operators, for selling a car unfit for driving. Which could be compared, I suppose, to a company which sells food they've dumpstered --- at that point they do take on a responsibility for the quality of the food.

Make sense?

locks can be broke.

Are you serious? To defend putting poisonous substances on garbage, you say "bums can tell, and if they can't then stuff them." But against the idea of locking the garbage up, you give us "but bums might carry a pry bar" ...?

Just answer the question. Do you have any problem with the store locking up its garbage to prevent "bums" taking it?

not only is the food made unsafe, It is made to be obviously unsafe by the discoloration,smell and taste. I assume you know the difference between cleaning agent taste and sugar.

Its just like putting a bittering agent in antifreeze.

No, it's not. The bittering agent does not make the antifreeze more toxic.

Same with "methylated spirits." Once, methanol was put in such pure ethanol, but that isn't done any more because it makes the spirits toxic. EDIT: Um, that's wrong. It's still legal in some countries. Don't drink metho.

It is not the job of the grocery store to feed the homeless.
It's not the job of the grocery store to poison the homeless, either.

More over the food may be unsafe especially if it has sat in a dumpster all day during the summer heat.
You're just repeating your bogus argument that, if a risk exists naturally, then it's okay to increase the risk deliberately. No, it is not okay. It may be dangerous for me to walk very close to the edge of a cliff. That does not give you permission to push me off the edge.

And while it would be better if a chemical was made specially for that purpose the cleaning agent discolors, and bitters the food to discourage consumption. Its just like using a bittering agent in poisonous chemicals that happen to taste good(anti freeze).

what bothers me is why haven't we made agents just for this purpose and why haven't we mandated this be done.
What bothers me is that you seem so in favor of poisoning people that you want to develop special ways of doing it so that you can still try to avoid prison.

You know what an even better way would be? PUT A FUCKING PADLOCK ON THE FUCKING DUMPSTER.

Two separate issues here. The first is how fast food goes bad in a dumpster. That's definitely a lot quicker than normally, but is not so fast as to make it go bad the moment it's thrown in. If, for example, the store shuts at 10pm, and you pull that day's disposals out of the dumpster at midnight, that won't have made a major difference to it.

Having said that, yes, you do need to exercise more caution with dumpstered food. Meat and dairy products are not a particularly good idea, while bread or heavily packaged and long lasting foods, tins, etc, should generally be fine after a few hours in there. With some practice, one can get pretty good at telling if something is 'off' before eating it, and that combined with common sense makes it fairly safe.

A store will not wait to dumpster a food until 10 pm. Most dumpster the food between 10 am and 5 pm. because during those hours customers are at work but you don't have to pay employees over time(kroger's in Texas was automatic over time past 9 pm). So that's when my old store would send us through to clear the shelves. the food will be out there much closer to 12 hours and during the heat of the day.

And while it would be better if a chemical was made specially for that purpose the cleaning agent discolors, and bitters the food to discourage consumption. Its just like using a bittering agent in poisonous chemicals that happen to taste good(anti freeze).

what bothers me is why haven't we made agents just for this purpose and why haven't we mandated this be done.

So you concede that what the store did was wrong?

I'm not going to stand along side you when you say "we haven't made agents just for this purpose." That's you taking common cause with a store which has used whatever cheap crap came to hand for this purpose, knowing that it was poisonous, and I'm not taking responsibility for what you allege is a lack of alternatives.

Despite citing a known alternative.

Unless you produce a new argument, I am satisfied that you are wrong, and that you are defending an illegal act.

A store will not wait to dumpster a food until 10 pm. Most dumpster the food between 10 am and 5 pm. because during those hours customers are at work but you don't have to pay employees over time(kroger's in Texas was automatic over time past 9 pm). So that's when my old store would send us through to clear the shelves. the food will be out there much closer to 12 hours and during the heat of the day.

Indeed. But there's other stuff which won't get thrown out till the end of the day, normally after being drastically reduced. And by happy coincidence, stuff thrown out at the end tends to end up on top, where it's easier to find.

Also worth noting is that the discussed incident was in Sweden, not Texas, and so the days are a lot cooler over there. That also makes a difference to its inherent health.

It's not the job of the grocery store to poison the homeless, either.

I don't speak German. But is there one documented incident of a Homeless person being poisoned by this ???
I bet there are documented cases of Homeless dieing of food poisoning after eating from dumpsters.


You're just repeating your bogus argument that, if a risk exists naturally, then it's okay to increase the risk deliberately. No, it is not okay. It may be dangerous for me to walk very close to the edge of a cliff. That does not give you permission to push me off the edge.

If it is my cliff no you do not. do you know why? Because if you fall guess who has to clean the mess up the property owner. More over the property owner has the right to adjust the face of the cliff so it looks much more obviously unsafe in order to discourage people like you from playing on the edge. (which is much closer to the topic then your idea), even if it does also make the cliff edge more unsafe.
More over my argument is more valid then yours as their is no poisoning as no one has consumed the products so treated. It is also not the homeless persons right to consume my waste food. Because if he gets sick on my property who cleans up the mess? More over the time it takes to clean up the mess(es) and will drive away my customers.


What bothers me is that you seem so in favor of poisoning people that you want to develop special ways of doing it so that you can still try to avoid prison.

I was thinking something more along the lines of less poisoning and bittering discoloring smelling bad.


You know what an even better way would be? PUT A FUCKING PADLOCK ON THE FUCKING DUMPSTER.

It doesn't really help you cant completely seal off a dumpster. Because as garbage breaks down methane and other gases are released. In an enclosed space they become toxic so now your employees might die when they throw away the garbage.
Also during extended periods of storage(say a garbage workers strike) the build up of these gases can become explosive. Most cities have garbage codes to this effect.

Now you can build a fence around the dumpster and lock that, however anyone seeking to steal from your dumpster likely has no qualms about hopping a fence.

Indeed. But there's other stuff which won't get thrown out till the end of the day, normally after being drastically reduced. And by happy coincidence, stuff thrown out at the end tends to end up on top, where it's easier to find.

Also worth noting is that the discussed incident was in Sweden, not Texas, and so the days are a lot cooler over there. That also makes a difference to its inherent health.

So Sweden has never had a heat wave ??? wasn't their a European one in 2005?

Having said that, yes, you do need to exercise more caution with dumpstered food. Meat and dairy products are not a particularly good idea, while bread or heavily packaged and long lasting foods, tins, etc, should generally be fine after a few hours in there.
Actually dairy products are fine. Milk almost never spoils, it turns into another kind of dairy product.
Tins are pretty much the only safe thing, but then they usually DO sell them before they expire; and bleach won't get inside anyway.


Second issue is suing stores for getting sick from eating dumpstered food. That's a ridiculous idea, provided the store don't actively make it unfit for consumption. Basically, if the store doesn't actively make the food harmful, and someone gets sick from eating it having knowingly acquired it when it was being disposed due to age, that's the person's fault, not the stores.
Tell it to people winning ridiculous lawsuits. It's not criminal law, intent doesn't matter much.



Ooh, nice. Unfortunately, the case isn't directly analagous, that's certain. So shall we construct ourselves a nice analogy? Your original car is basically the out-of-date food. The act of sabotaging it is equivalent to poisoning the food. But crucially, someone buying it from the junkyard is not the same as someone fishing it out of the dumpster.
How so? Or maybe he's not buying, he's taking it for free, there are unguarded junkyards.


To arrive at a situation analagous to poisoning dumpstered food, you would have to leave the sabotaged car, with the keys in the ignition, in a fairly easy to find place.
BUT, the car's entire front end is a mess, the windows are broken, and it's full of buckshot holes.

Making it unsafe wasn't the point of my actions, it was about making it obvious you shouldn't drive this one, and I did it.


In the situation as you presented it, however, the fault lies with the junkyard operators, for selling a car unfit for driving.
Of course no. The junkyard running an inspection on the cars would cost more than they get for them. These cars aren't supposed to be fit for driving. You are just buying trash.

I don't speak German. But is there one documented incident of a Homeless person being poisoned by this ???
I bet there are documented cases of Homeless dieing of food poisoning after eating from dumpsters.
More of the same bogus crap from you.

The bad act is in the intent. Their intent was to create a health hazard for human beings. Whether not anyone actually died before they were caught setting those traps is irrelevant to the badness of their action.

If it is my cliff no you do not. do you know why? Because if you fall guess who has to clean the mess up the property owner.
And if you push me over the edge, guess who ends up in prison? You.

More over the property owner has the right to adjust the face of the cliff so it looks much more obviously unsafe in order to discourage people like you from playing on the edge. (which is much closer to the topic then your idea), even if it does also make the cliff edge more unsafe.
No, you don't. You have the right to make the cliff inaccessible by erecting fences, etc. You do not have the right to make it more dangerous to people.

More over my argument is more valid then yours as their is no poisoning as no one has consumed the products so treated. It is also not the homeless persons right to consume my waste food. Because if he gets sick on my property who cleans up the mess? More over the time it takes to clean up the mess(es) and will drive away my customers.
Your argument is invalid because its bullshit.

1) As stated above, the bad act is determined by the intent. The intent was to create a danger to human beings.

2) You don't own your garbage. Garbage is abandoned property. Nobody owns it. What you own is the property the garbage is on. You can argue that the homeless are trespassing to get to the garbage, but a store would have to keep its dumpster in a place that was clearly not public for that to work. And in any event, crossing a property line does not make it okay to poison people.

I was thinking something more along the lines of less poisoning and bittering discoloring smelling bad.
Sure, right, of course you were.

It doesn't really help you cant completely seal off a dumpster. Because as garbage breaks down methane and other gases are released. In an enclosed space they become toxic so now your employees might die when they throw away the garbage.
Also during extended periods of storage(say a garbage workers strike) the build up of these gases can become explosive. Most cities have garbage codes to this effect.

Now you can build a fence around the dumpster and lock that, however anyone seeking to steal from your dumpster likely has no qualms about hopping a fence.
So the fuck what? That's what cops are for. That's what insurance is for.

And...exploding dumpsters? Seriously? That's your argument? Did you make a bet with a friend to show how ridiculous you could make yourself look online?

The bottom line is this: You don't know what you're talking about. You are fantasizing a bunch of BS that does not match reality. You are defending an illegal an immoral action. Your defenses fail.

No, you don't. You have the right to make the cliff inaccessible by erecting fences, etc. You do not have the right to make it more dangerous to people.
Could you cite the law forbidding the landowner to reshape the landscape if it makes it more dangerous to walk there?




Also, I've seen, as in walked near as a tourist, cliffs deliberately made "more dangerous" by damaging the edge to introduce a slope, so that it's obvious they're dangerous and people don't stand on the edge. A lot of criminals out there.
BTW, the court could well rule out that turning an invisible danger into an obvious danger would qualify as making it less dangerous.

On the other hand, what happens if they allow people to eat expired food, or give it to them, and someone gets ill? Are they liable?

More of the same bogus crap from you.

The bad act is in the intent. Their intent was to create a health hazard for human beings.

I don't think that could be proven, unless we have a translation of the article which I missed.

I would say instead "their intent was to make the food inedible by their own standards" and that by assuming that a scavenger would recognize those standards of edibility, they recklessly endangered the lives of scavengers.

The staff are handling food, and even when it's in the dumpster it is somebody's idea of food. That's the job of those staff, the safe handling of food.

Just a thought. I'm bowing out now, since g&d isn't my idea of a troll, and doesn't deserve you, me and UvV beating up on him simultaneously.

2) You don't own your garbage. Garbage is abandoned property. Nobody owns it. What you own is the property the garbage is on. You can argue that the homeless are trespassing to get to the garbage, but a store would have to keep its dumpster in a place that was clearly not public for that to work. And in any event, crossing a property line does not make it okay to poison people.

Most fast-food joints I've worked in do precisely that, as well as both of the local supermarkets: not only are there locks on the Dumpsters, the Dumpsters are in fenced-off areas that only the store and the hauling company have keys to.

I suppose it's possible in a congested urban area that Lidl might not have the space for a garbage corral. But still, padlocks: waaay more effective.

On the other hand, what happens if they allow people to eat expired food, or give it to them, and someone gets ill? Are they liable?

They would be probably be liable in the US, depending on the specifics of "allowed". I'm curious to know if they'd be liable in Sweden.

Tell it to people winning ridiculous lawsuits. It's not criminal law, intent doesn't matter much.

That's a bad argument. You call those cases "ridiculous" but that's a criticism of the process of law, not of its principles.

Which, I hope, is what we arguing here.

Quite lolsome to see Trans Fatty Acids weigh into this thread. Rancid fats have been on my mind for a while -- an excellent case of when it is very difficult for the consumer to tell whether food is "off." :D

ive taken food from store dumpsters before
and this actually makes me worried that i could have swallowed really harmful chemicals :S

Oooh, this bothers me so much. In short, YES, they should be allowed.

I worked at a supermarket for a year, and couldn't believe the amount of food thrown away every day. Day old bread...mountains of it...bruised but still edible produce, etc etc. Locked up in dumpsters, and any attempts to 'steal' this precious waste brought down the wrath. A single mom I knew was fired for taking a loaf of bread that was about to be tossed out.

I understand, to a certain extent, that 'giving food away' might cause people to stop buying food, waiting to dumpster dive instead, therefore causing there to be more waste, and more dumpster diving, and less sales.

But seriously now.

Food Not Bombs spent months upon months negotiating with certain chains here to take the trashed produce for use in their various projects. There was so much resistance...but it's not as though you're going to find the middle class frequenting the shelters FNB doles out meals at. This was not in any way going to undercut business for the supermarkets...nor HAS it, since they grudgingly agreed.

That we could sanction the waste of food, the miserly retention of 'garbage'...the successful prosecutions based on property rights to trashed food...bothers me so much it actually makes me froth around the mouth a little. What a sick fucking society we live in.
City Harvest here gets food from restaurants that went unused, and takes it to shelters to be used.

Could you cite the law forbidding the landowner to reshape the landscape if it makes it more dangerous to walk there?




Also, I've seen, as in walked near as a tourist, cliffs deliberately made "more dangerous" by damaging the edge to introduce a slope, so that it's obvious they're dangerous and people don't stand on the edge. A lot of criminals out there.
BTW, the court could well rule out that turning an invisible danger into an obvious danger would qualify as making it less dangerous.
No, I won't for the following reasons:

1) There are lots of different laws that boil down to the same thing in hundreds, if not thousands of different jurisdictions.

2) You have been sidelining this conversation with barely related bad arguments of your own for a while now. You have already exceeded your allowance of annoyingly non-constructive remarks for me to not engage you for the remainder of the thread.

Therefore the only response you are going to get is this: Thousands of personal injury lawsuits filed every year are based on a complaint that a property owner created and/or tolerated a dangerous condition on their property that a prudent person should have known was a hazard to others. On this basis, hundreds of millions of dollars in damages have been awarded to injured people in countless cases.

Also, there have been and continue to be criminal charges brought against people for creating and/or tolerating obvious dangerous conditions that ended up directly causing another person's death. There are many different laws addressing that sort of thing too.

This is a very basic concept. You are not allowed to, essentially, set traps for human beings. If it is your intention to pretend not to know that, or you wish to base one of your thought experiments on such a pretense, do it on your time, not mine.

ive taken food from store dumpsters before
and this actually makes me worried that i could have swallowed really harmful chemicals :S

If that was the intention of the store staff ... yes.

They might have put tasteless and odourless poisons in the food, but that's a whole other level of criminal intent.

This isn't an act of murder or even manslaughter. It's reckless disregard of life.

Deliberately harming you without warning, for being a skip-diver, has to be far less common. Have some faith in humanity!

This is a very basic concept. You are not allowed to, essentially, set traps for human beings.
The defining characteristic of a trap is being concealed. By clearly marking a dangerous product/substance with an easily obvious toxic substance, one, on the contrary, reduces the risk that it will be consumed.



You have already exceeded your allowance of annoyingly non-constructive remarks for me to not engage you for the remainder of the thread.
I would be grateful if you extended the offer to all threads. Your constant excess of aggression and personal attacks amidst civil behavior of other participants makes threads with your active participation annoying and unpleasant to read.

I'm amazed. All this could have been avoided by donating this stuff.
not if it's past their use-by-date. That's why they no longer offer dented tins cheap anymore.

On the supermarket's side, perhaps they did for a couple of reasons:
1. To stop homeless peoples hanging around their dumpsters for safety, security and hygiene reasons;
If there was always a crowd of homeless hanging around the supermarket, it might well scare away some customers. And not all homeless are law-abiding, so there would always be the possibility of some of them taking the opportunity to break into the supermarket (or parked cars). By hygiene, I mean having to clean up all the rubbish that is chucked about by the homeless while looking for the edible foodstuffs. Someone would have to clean that mess up.

2. To stop employees from 'accidentally' chucking out good stuff, to be collected later.
When I was at school, I worked in a supermarket. Any packets of stuff we ripped when stocking shelves had to be taken out the back where it was ticked off then chucked. This was perfectly good food, so it seemed a waste to us, so we'd invariably eat most of the stuff before biffing. However my mate was seen doing this and was fired. Fired just for eating food that was to be chucked. Harsh? Maybe, maybe not. Supermarkets operate on a very little profit margin, so every item is important. And how will the owner know if that packet of biscuits you've just 'accidentally' slashed wasn't in fact deliberate just cause you were feeling a bit peckish?

The defining characteristic of a trap is being concealed. By clearly marking a dangerous product/substance with an easily obvious toxic substance, one, on the contrary, reduces the risk that it will be consumed.




I would be grateful if you extended the offer to all threads. Your constant excess of aggression and personal attacks amidst civil behavior of other participants makes threads with your active participation annoying and unpleasant to read.
I hardly ever talk to you. You have little to complain about.

Quite lolsome to see Trans Fatty Acids weigh into this thread. Rancid fats have been on my mind for a while -- an excellent case of when it is very difficult for the consumer to tell whether food is "off." :D

Which is precisely why I should weigh in, as I last much longer than more natural fats. My life's work: helping to preserve the Twinkies long enough so that the homeless can die slowly from clogged arteries like the rest of us.

Which is precisely why I should weigh in, as I last much longer than more natural fats. My life's work: helping to preserve the Twinkies long enough so that the homeless can die slowly from clogged arteries like the rest of us.

I'm glad to say I have never eaten a Twinkie. I think I bit the end of one once, but it was some kind of dare which also involved some purple pills and a mechanical bull.

But it does point to an interesting thought : should people, homeless or other, be allowed to take goods (especially food) that has been thrown away by supermarkets?

I think people shouldn't take food from waste bins. It's unhealty (it could be too old, it could have gone mouldy, it could have been tampered with by the supermarket's customers).
If there's poverty, the State should kick in by:
1.giving food directly to the poorest people (via social services), maybe forcing supermarket chains to give to social services the food that's almost too old to be sold
2.lowering taxation on low incomes
3.raising taxes on waste (you waste too much, you pay more)
4.raising the lower wages (via collective labour contract, or minimal wage laws)


Anyway, the guys who thought a good idea to poison the food in the waste are nothing but criminals.

You don't own your garbage. Garbage is abandoned property. Nobody owns it. What you own is the property the garbage is on.

Well no. I don't know about Sweden, but here in Italy garbage is property. Your property until it's in your own waste-bin, the condominium's property if it's in the condominium's waste-bins, the city's if it's in a municipal waste-bin on the street etc.
This is because you have to dispose properly (and according the law) of the garbage you produce.

(anyway see my previous post in this thread to know what I think of people deliberately poisoning food)

I'm amazed. All this could have been avoided by donating this stuff.
I worked at a supermarket once... well, in a sandwich making part of the supermarket which was part of the whole thing, anyway, we had to throw out all of our extra sandwiches at the end of the day. I asked my manager why we didn't give them to a homeless shelter or something like this and she told me that they used to do this until a homeless shelter received a food donation, didn't store it properly and fed it to people who then got sick. The store got sued... et c so now they don't donate anymore. I imagine it's the same sort of thing.

That doesn't mean they should poison the food though.

Anyway, the guys who thought a good idea to poison the food in the waste are nothing but criminals.

Its not a question of being a good idea, its a question of does the owner of the food have a right to do what he or she wants to with their own property? If i wanted to stick a bunch of celery up my ass then throw it in the dumpster i should be thrown in jail because some moron is trawling in a bacteria infected garbage can?? Or shall i be required to post a sign on my own garbage dumpster: Caution i may be inclined to stick veggies up my ass at times?

Shall i be required to scrub the insides of my garbage cans as to not poison any potential scavangers with possible semolina? Should i also be required to throw away a nice placemat and a salt and pepper shaker and a candle with every load to maximize a scavangers enjoyment of his visit?

Good on Lidl.

Ok, I just happened across a most remarkable bit of news. Unfortunately, I've only got a German text on it : http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,590329,00.html

To give a short summary, the employees of a Lidl supermarket in Stockholm have for a short period of time been poisoning out-of-date food with cleaning chemicals before putting them out in the dumpster. They wanted to keep homeless people from taking the food once it's been thrown out.
The company issued an apology for this in the meantime.

But it does point to an interesting thought : should people, homeless or other, be allowed to take goods (especially food) that has been thrown away by supermarkets?
I know there are some people in the UK who will get most of their weekly "shopping" from dumpsters outside Tesco's and Sainsbury's... they usually go after the supermarket has closed for the night. I've seen a documentary the other day, for some people the motive is simply to reduce the waste of these supermarkets, who will throw out things like multi-packs of chocolates for no other reason that the outer package being broken (the chocolate itself is still nice and clean within two more layers of packaging...)

I'm a bit in two minds... one the one hand I don't see how those supermarkets can object to somebody taking what they so obviously don't want any more.
On the other hand, while the rubbish is still on their premisses it's their call really, isn't it?

The bolded

Okay, now people are bringing up how dirty dumpsters are, and missing the point.

The POINT, is that yes, dumpster-diving is already pretty dangerous, but infections and such are unintentional dangers-that is, nobody's actively putting dangerous bacteria into the dumpster in question for the express purpose of inflicting harm on other people.

Likewise, an accidental spill into a dumpster that gets on the past-sell-by food isn't the same thing either.

It's when you have intent to cause harm that it becomes a sinister, and potentially (certainly in the U.S.)Legal and moral hazard to the owner of said dumpster.

Dumping dran-o into a box of cereal deliberately shows intent to do bodily harm. Many of the same folks here who are arguing in Lidl's favour, would be aghast at the idea of Lidl hiring some leg-breaker to beat up homeless people who go to scavengen. It's assault.

Mind you, if the intent is to drive off hoboes, it would probably work better, but it would be a PR disaster for the company-as this is, and with good reason.

The same reason that adding poison, deliberately, to the wasted food is viewed dimly by those of us who find this repugnant.

Dress it up all y'alls want, the intention of putting the poison on the food in the dumpster, is to do harm to human beings who have committed the sin of being destitute in a wealthy nation. It is an act designed to hurt people. When someone is hungry enough, they'll eat the most godawful things-I know, I've BEEN THERE before-go five days without something to eat, and even brown lettuce and questionable half-eaten sandwiches are a feast, kids, and you CAN get hungry enough to 'nevermind the smell', pull the obviously bad pieces off the meat, and hope to whatever gods you pray to that it doesn't make you bazooka-puke yourself to death (for those without imagination-liquid coming out both ends, one of the fine symptoms of food poisoning.)

There are laws in most civilized countries against putting out poisoned food. Even obviously poisoned food, in the U.S. most of those laws were written because people would put out 'bait foods' for loose animals, bait that was then consumed by humans, who subsequently (thanks to reduced immune systems, generally poor health, youth or age) died.

This is the same kind of situation as the guy who puts arsenic mixed in with food-items to get rid of a raccoon problem-only in this case, the 'vermin' are People.

Sudova says it all. And I am fed up with the pro-Lidl arguments in this thread because they all sound like the usual unrealistic nonsense of people who like to cop a smug, callous attitude of valuing property over people, arguments which have no relation and no application to reality. I mean seriously, when you have people arguing that it is okay to set out poison for human beings in order to protect your sacred garbage from the poor, what is there to do but call bullshit? It is just not possible to believe that any sane person really believes such crap, rather than they are just blowing smoke on the internet.

Its not a question of being a good idea, its a question of does the owner of the food have a right to do what he or she wants to with their own property? If i wanted to stick a bunch of celery up my ass then throw it in the dumpster i should be thrown in jail because some moron is trawling in a bacteria infected garbage can?? Or shall i be required to post a sign on my own garbage dumpster: Caution i may be inclined to stick veggies up my ass at times?

Shall i be required to scrub the insides of my garbage cans as to not poison any potential scavangers with possible semolina? Should i also be required to throw away a nice placemat and a salt and pepper shaker and a candle with every load to maximize a scavangers enjoyment of his visit?

So you've abandoned the idea of wiping your arse on a Twinkie then sealing it back into its packet. Apparently some part of what I said about intent to harm another person sunk in.

So you're going to draw the line just a little further back towards what a reasonable person might do without demonstrating such intent. Disguising your bumwad as food, no, but using food as sextoy OK eh?

Your concept of property rights does seem to revolve around your own arse, which rather amuses me. But it comes down to the same question: intent. If you were silly enough to make a sworn statement that you had done that to the celery to make it inedible then I rather think you would be found guilty of trying to make another person sick. Of course that doesn't mean you have to take any explicit action to make the food palatable or easy to access, despite your attempts to devise a reverse onus.

Food is a rather special case. People do deliberately ruin consumer goods before throwing them away -- cutting the cord off electricals, ripping or pouring oil onto fabrics, etc. While I find that mean, I think they're within their rights to do so. But food is different, because a person MIGHT be hungry enough to eat it anyway, with or without washing it.

Sudova says it all. And I am fed up with the pro-Lidl arguments

Excellent. There's still some left!

*climbs into dumpster*

It's worth noting that Lidl have specifically renounced the policy by staff at that one store. They issued an apology, which given that food has apparently been taken since the store started poisoning the food, amounts to an invitation to be sued.

Hopefully that will be a "class action" type settlement, with money going to some local charity rather than an individual bum.

On the one hand, it's not wise to give away old food to anyone if you're a business - your liability there is pretty obvious - but actively poisoning the stuff is nuts, like the Swede said. I've only ever briefly worked at a supermarket, but it was normal then for employees to take home old stuff, and the supermarket would mark old-ish stuff down 90% right before the sell-by date approached to obviate the need for giveaways anyway. That was the case even for products which really didn't spoil, in fact.