And now for something completely different...
Freeganism.
So, I decided to subscribe to an e-mail newsletter about freeganism (check these out for basic info: freegan.info, veganporn and wikipedia's definition). I was IMMEDIATLEY turned off on the concept, which I had initially considered interesting, because the first e-mail I got was a treatise on why shoplifting is good.
Then I read this, which I thought was remarkably well-written (and interestingly enough, I got this link from that same freegan newsletter), but I disagree with her assertion that people not buying things cannot and will not hurt producers- if enough people do it, then producers will be hurt, their profits will go down. Now, would enough people ever do this? I doubt it. And as my friend Alala mentioned, do any of them have children? Puts a whole new dimension to the subject, doesn't it?
But I do agree about there being needier people out there, and maybe our focus should be more on shaming companies to not throw away perfectly good food, instead let's allow those who need it to be able to eat without digging through the trash. They deserve the right to that dignity (and much more- different issue though).
What do you guys think?
7 comment(s):
As I've already discussed with you, but felt I should put it out there - When I was in high school in New York, I had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of Phil Zarro, co-owner, I believe along with his brother, of Zarro's Bakery in NYC.
This was a rather large bakery with several locations doing good business in mid-town. The bakery prided itself on serving fresh product everyday, as such, all the breads and pastries that were left-over were donated to the local homeless shelters and soup kitchens. That was in 1988 - can only assume they're still doing that. It's a shame more companies don't do that - I would think if they tracked the amounts and the worth, they could also get a tax write off...
By Kevin Smith, at 2:03 PM
Unfortunately, in such a litigious culture, a lot of companies are advised against this by their lawyers, because they're liable if someone chokes on a cruller. That's also a reason landlords don't/can't permit squatters in their empty buildings. Just another piece of the whole sorry mess. I do agree with the general points about rabid consumerism, but on the other hand, it's really not practical.
On the other-other hand (um, can I borrow a hand? thanks), it shows just how trapped in the system we all are, that we can't buck it in any substantive way. Big biz really does have us all by the short n' curlies.
By alala, at 3:29 PM
I'll have to double-check, but I seem to recall reading about some exception to the law, stating that people who donate food with good intention cannot be sued. I'll check up on it, and see what I can find.
By Kelly, at 3:32 PM
Ah, here it is:
Even when Nelson mentioned the “Good Samaritan Law” that allows businesses and individuals to donate edible food to charities who work to fight hunger without fear of being sued, Carleson didn’t come back with the most obvious response, which would be: “Gee, you had a job, you’re well-dressed. You don’t look like you need to be scrounging around in dumpsters for food. So why not try to get the stores who throw out the food you eat to donate it to a food bank so that people who really need it can get it?”
That's from here:
http://www.tigersandstrawberries.com/2006/02/09/freeganism-whats-up-with-that/
By Kelly, at 3:34 PM
Ah, and more info:
http://www.licares.org/General_Information/Good_Samaritan_Act.htm
By Kelly, at 3:37 PM
To play devil's advocate (given the date it only seemed right), to some (albeit small) extent the freegans are actually helping the producers who are throwing away their unused goods. If a freegan pulls a pair of Nikes out of the trash and wears them, aren't they in a sense advertising for the very company they are financially abstaining from? Propagating the image that Nike is trying to sell? Especially if they have kids-if their kid shows up to school wearing a pair of Nikes, in some school environments this may cause another child whose parents are willing to shell out the money will go to the store and buy a pair. Some of the DC teachers I go to school with talk about how their (some) students beg them for money to buy breakfast but wear $90 Nikes to school. Certainly image sells and the freegans who do it for philosophical reasons are simply helping the corporations in this sense.
By waltzingmathilda, at 3:55 PM
To play devil's advocate (given the date it only seemed right), to some (albeit small) extent the freegans are actually helping the producers who are throwing away their unused goods. If a freegan pulls a pair of Nikes out of the trash and wears them, aren't they in a sense advertising for the very company they are financially abstaining from? Propagating the image that Nike is trying to sell? Especially if they have kids-if their kid shows up to school wearing a pair of Nikes, in some school environments this may cause another child whose parents are willing to shell out the money will go to the store and buy a pair. Some of the DC teachers I go to school with talk about how their (some) students beg them for money to buy breakfast but wear $90 Nikes to school. Certainly image sells and the freegans who do it for philosophical reasons are simply helping the corporations in this sense.
By waltzingmathilda, at 3:55 PM
Post a comment
<< Home