you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 week ago (25 children)

That's different because it's a liability thing. Some asshole would sue over bad food which means nobody gets the food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    Americans would rather chuck perfectly good food into a dumpster than entertain the possibility of summoning the collective fucking will to fix a VERY straightforward problem. The idea that they could just legislate some reasonable liability protections and make sure edible food gets to hungry people apparently requires a level of imagination and civic competence beyond anyone's wildest dream. So much easier to blame "some asshole" for creating what is surely an insurmountable legal paradox. The food rots, needy people go hungry, and the US gets to pretend the problem is some unavoidable fact of life rather than admit they just couldn't be arsed to try.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • load more comments (22 replies)