Because they’re not allowed to give the food away once it is out of date.

Are you Nieve?

if they can sell out of date food at isle ends then surely they can sell it to charities for, say, a penny?

EDIT: always been carp at spelling

Further edit: Foods marked with ‘best before’ or ‘best before end’ dates may be sold after their marked dates, provided that they remain of good quality and fit for human consumption. In these circumstances it is advisable to ensure that customers know that the date has expired before they make the decision to buy. (trading standards website).

I suppose the counter-argument is similiar to downloading music- the cost isn’t the item you “stole”, it’s the item you didn’t buy. I don’t think that stands up, but it’s a defensible position.

ninfan – Member

I don’t quite know how someone climbing over the back fence of the loading yard at midnight would be able to tell which food was going to be thrown away, and which would get picked up by us in the morning…

My postie thinks it’s a good idea to put packages in the bin but I don’t think it’s the norm in retail distribution.

there’s a difference between ‘best before’ and ‘use by’

Stuff sold at aisle ends (I’ve always been OK at spelling 😉 ) won’t be out of date, it’ll be close to going out of date and therefore reduced as an incentive for us to buy it. If it was same price and just on the shelf, people rummage to the back to get the one with a longer use by date.

there’s a difference between ‘best before’ and ‘use by’

Which is why we need to stop saying

won’t be out of date

as it’s meaningless. Stuff with a “REDUCED!!” sticker may have exceeded its “best before” date, but will not (legally) be past its “use by” date.

if they can sell out of date food at isle ends then surely they can sell it to charities for, say, a penny?

As above – out of date, but out of which date? ‘Best before’ is just stock control, all kinds of preserved food has best before dates on, it might notionally be ‘nicer’ before a given date but it won’t be bad/nasty/harmful after that.

Some ‘Best before’ is spurious though, sometimes it relates to the promotion on the packet rather than the food inside, so a lot of preserved/long shelf life items get dumped simply because Toy Story 6 isn’t still in the cinemas and the they want to use the shelf space and Rice Pops packet to advertise something else instead.

But ‘Use by’ is legally binding and its for items that start to become a hazard to health after an elapsed time. Plenty of best-before does find its way to charities and also through secondary markets discounting like ‘Approved Foods’. But its not charitable to give people food that will make them ill.

I’ve tried explaining to her that if someone is so desparate for food that they’re willing to raid bins just to survive, then perhaps a bit of charity on her behalf would be more appropriate instead of her usual right wing tirade against the poor…

Good for you Bob! Fight the power! 😉

I hope it does highlight the food-waste problem. I’ve had this debate about ‘skipping’ a few times. I think a lot of people just don’t like the idea of people getting stuff without paying for it. It kind of bucks the whole system. But rather than think about it, it’s easier to just call the skippers ‘scroungers’ or ‘criminals’. You get the same kind of thing with the TV license debate. And, closer to home, the ‘cyclists should pay ‘road tax because we have to’ brigade.

I remember seeing my grandad smash his TV with a hammer before taking it to the tip. Just in case someone recycled it or “got it for free”.

http://about.iceland.co.uk/_assets/files/Prosecution-for-waste-food-theft-29-1-14.pdf

I’d like to know more about their lifestyles as well – needing to eat is one thing but choosing to squat and scavenge can be a lifestyle choice for some. Middle class ‘look at me’ types!

^^This.

The guy is a web designer in London. He shouldn’t be living in a squat scavenging food.

Iceland says it has asked CPS why men are being tried for taking food from bins

Chief executive says he has contacted prosecutors after men were charged and insists Iceland did not call police

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/29/iceland-cps-men-tried-taking-food-bins

Maybe he’s not a very good web designer.

Supermarkets throw away food because customers won’t buy the last item on the shelf.

That doesn’t account for 40% of bagged salad being thrown out (unless there were only 2 bags on the shelf to start with and then the maths don’t quite add up).

From the Grauniad link

Lawyers for the three men have asked the CPS to consider dropping the case, but it responded this month that the case would go ahead, because “we feel there is significant public interest in prosecuting these three individuals”.

Unreal. I made a complaint to the police a few years ago about a company that had defrauded people for thousands of pounds, and was told it was a civil matter and the police could do nothing about it, yet 3 guys take some food out a bin and that’s suddenly in the public interest to prosecute.

Case dropped:

http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2014/01/cps-statement-iceland-foods-case.html

cps saying it was the Met’s fault for bringing it to court using 200 year old legislation.

I think that’s dangerous. Makes it hard to prosecute anyone for the same offence now, surely. They’ll be queueing by the bins for closing time before long.

Much as it hurts to say it, they should have been prosecuted with the magistrates showing leniency IF it can be shown that they acted truly out of hardship; that might go some way to preventing others thinking it’s fair game, and would also draw attention to the situation in which tonnes of edible food is being dumped when it could be used for good purposes.

On a side note, does anyone have any dealings with the Trussell Trust. Have been thinking that I should set up a regular donation.

I think that’s dangerous. Makes it hard to prosecute anyone for the same offence now, surely. They’ll be queueing by the bins for closing time before long.

I don’t see a problem with that.

I suspect that the interest here is to keep the issue of food waste of the big retailers out of the media.

Iceland may be the best but they have no desire to see this stirred up nor do the government

On a side note, does anyone have any dealings with the Trussell Trust. Have been thinking that I should set up a regular donation.

Yep, I give them £20/month. I feel very ashamed to live in a society where we think it is acceptable for people to be unable to feed their families yet pay billions in bonuses to bankers…..

+1. DD set up.

I suspect that the interest here is to keep the issue of food waste of the big retailers out of the media.

Iceland may be the best but they have no desire to see this stirred up nor do the government

+1

Supermarkets throw away food because customers won’t buy the last item on the shelf.

That doesn’t account for 40% of bagged salad being thrown out (unless there were only 2 bags on the shelf to start with and then the maths don’t quite add up).

That totally accounts for 40% being thrown out – they over stock to avoid here ever being one to two items left on the shelf.

I don’t see a problem with that

I do, if it turns into a free for all where it’s acceptable to ‘break into’ secure premises in order to take dumped food. Particularly if groups who already are scrounging off the rest of society instead of paying their way see it as an entitlement now.

If there is as much use able food being dumped as there seems to be, there needs to be a proper means of redistributing it to those that need it, not for it to be appropriated by those that are fit enough to climb the fence.

supermarkets increase the price of the food you and i buy to account for the waste they throw away.
lots of which is not ‘out of date’ but simply thrown away to make room for the fresh stock about to be delivered.

i think there is ‘significant public interest’ in stopping this waste which some estimates quote at being £10 billion.

The pic in the link- is that junkyard?

^^This.
The guy is a web designer in London. He shouldn’t be living in a squat scavenging food.

Why on earth do you think this is any of your business?

The difficulty in not prosecuting is setting the precedent, making it OK to enter a locked premises with intent to take discarded food away.

Trespass isn’t a crime either. It’s a civil offence that I imagine most people on STW do on a fairly regular basis.

I do, if it turns into a free for all where it’s acceptable to ‘break into’ secure premises in order to take dumped food. Particularly if groups who already are scrounging off the rest of society instead of paying their way see it as an entitlement now.

What exactly did they “break” to enter?

It must be nice to have such a lucky life and then blame anyone who is down on their luck, I hope you never find yourself in such a situation as to need the compassion of others to help you along in life someday, because unfortunately your attitude is spreading and you would probably find yourself ****.

Apparently they are now not going to be prosecuted, and the shop had no involvement.

What exactly did they “break” to enter?

Well according to Jamie’s link, Iceland said:

Products are only designated as waste when they have passed their use-by dates and are considered unfit for human consumption. We utilise secure storage areas and/or locked waste bins to dispose of such products

So either they broke in, Iceland were lying, or they weren’t stealing waste produce.

Apparently they are now not going to be prosecuted, and the shop had no involvement.

Welcome to the contents of the rest of the thread.

MSP, wind your neck in and read my prior post on this subject.

I have absolute sympathy with those that find themselves genuinely in this situation. (I’m not sure that these 3 genuinely are btw but I’ll give benefit of the doubt). I’m concerned that by making it ok to enter a secure premises (or break in, or whatever, just terminology) it opens it up for all to do the same. Whether they need to or not. If they were prosecuted but given no penalty on the basis that it was a crime of necessity or whatever the right phrase would be, then it doesn’t make it ok for others to do it when they don’t have the need. And it would stand more hope of forcing the government to work with the food standards people and the supermarkets to find a means to get this food into the hands of those that genuinely need it via proper routes.

I’m concerned that by making it ok to enter a secure premises (or break in, or whatever, just terminology)

It’s not just terminology. Breaking in to me implies forcing entry, which means damaging stuff. Climbing over a wall is totally different – and as above, no worse than the trespass mountain bikers commit all the time.

MSP, wind your neck in and read my prior post on this subject.

This one? Maybe you should read your own posts, then wind your own neck in before criminalising poverty.

Particularly if groups who already are scrounging off the rest of society instead of paying their way see it as an entitlement now.

I see your point but I disagree. When a colleague had his car nicked, he didnt leave the door open, or the keys on the step. The scrotes nicked them through the letterbox causing zero damage. Just trespass?

Um no, that would be theft (or similar – IANAL). You know, an actual criminal offence resulting in the loss of something valuable.

Bit ridiculous to compare the two.

I’m talking about the benefit cheats and fraudsters, not those who genuinely need it, who I have sympathy for – so I’ll say it again, the issue of food waste and redistributing needs to be addressed properly, not by a free for all where your entitlement will be defined by your ability to get over the fence.

You know, an actual criminal offence resulting in the loss of something valuable.

So, just as a hypothetical – what if someone took a load of food being thrown away from the back of a supermarket and sold it on for a few quid?

OK?

I’m talking about the benefit cheats and fraudsters

Which ones? The imaginary ones, or the ones you’ve read about in the Daily Mail? Where in this story does it mention anything about benefit fraud?

Also, genuine benefit fraud is actually quite rare – the amount lost to it is dwarfed by the amount of legitimate benefits that go unclaimed.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-benefit-fraud-perspective/15796

I was only addressing the means of getting access to the items, as that’s what you were disputing. Gaining access to a locked premises with the intent of taking something that is not yours, doesn’t necessarily mean you have to cause damage to do it. It’s still ‘breaking in’ in my book.

What happened once inside is another subject. In both cases they took something that didnt belong to them. Value and intent *may* be different, as were the reasons why they took those steps but the action is the same.