>>8317
>I think this is a good move.
It's an anti-scarcity move, and as such it's a socialist move. The free market supporters won't like it.

>>8317
Two different problems here.
1) I don't understand at all why giving away unsold food is not already an obligation (if still consumable), let alone forbidden.
2) The water included in 1kg of beef is certainly not "wasted". The whole "litters in ..." measure was created as an index for studying water scarcity on a global scale, not water use. Even though producing meat requires very large quantity of water, you wouldn't say rain or river water to be wasted if not utilized; you just cannot waste rain water when it's raining of rivers when it's flowing (because unlike oil, it's renewable).

So, from a strictly ecological standpoint, this is ridiculous if not retarded; but socially and politically, I really don't get what they are waiting for authorizing it.
Is France the first country to come up with this?

>>8358
I'll never get that first point in the US.
Just about every single restaurant and business throws out their old food for the day instead of doing literally anything else with it.
Why do they do this? Its seriously shameful

>>8358
>>8364
the reason is usually food safety laws - they don't want to be liable for old/bad food, so they throw away anything questionable because otherwise they could get sued. Somewhere that makes sense, but it makes more sense to make a law that protects both sides.

>>8364
The reason supermarkets don't is because some people may not buy the food when it's in the store with the intention of gathering it when the store has to give it away.

I used to work at a restaurant and that's what I was told. If you give away food that's about to expire, people will just wait until they can get it for free instead of buying it.

>>8383
Apparently the liability thing in the US of A is a myth. On mobile right now and somewhat stoned, won't dare to try and find a link.

>>8383

There are actually legal protections -- which function like "good Samaritan" laws -- that prevent such things when the donation is made in good faith. (Of course some scum sucking lawyer with dollars in his eyes would love to argue good faith at $5000/hr.)

The real impediment is cost. It's a carting fee to go into a dumpster or free to be composted. Whereas donation means repackaging and transportation. The soup kitchen doesn't generally come pick stuff up in their fleet of trucks. In NYC we have a group called City Harvest that does, and consequently food waste here is pretty low compared to just about anywhere else.

It's a shitty situation. But it -- like any other economic problem -- is not fixed by imposing laws or warping the market.

>>8317
Sounds more like France was taken over by my grandma.
>2 French fries left in the basket
>"can I get a box for these?"

Maybe they should also stop throwing away food trucks from spain when they arrive at the frontier.

>>8317
Supermarket working in the uk here.

The amount of freah food i throw away at the end of each day is shameful

>>8317
>Supermarkets, restaurants, and individuals are all being targeted in order to try to reduce how much food is thrown away each year.
>individuals

What are they gonna do, root through my garbage can looking for the banana I threw out because it got too ripe?

>>8647
They're cooperating with google.
They know everything you do.

>>8647
no, they're planning on teaching why food waste is bad, how to prevent, etc.

>>8383
>>8419
there are food pantries that my grocery store gives expired product to. No transactions so no govt regulation. The problem is that it takes away some of the incentive for poor people to improve their lives and find better/healthier food.
same as>>8384 mentioned