Hacker News Reader

Comment by kleer001 | Hacker News Reader

> “It’s so gross that this is what they like to do, as a corporation, rather than help people.”

It's not the corporation, it's laws, it's sanitation and accountability, it's logistics. It's far more complex than she's either researched or would like to admit.

View on HN

I worked retail for a year as a kid and dealt with this issue. Another reason stuff is destroyed is to prevent insider issues. You will naturally have merchandise that gets damaged in day to day operations or becomes no longer viable to sell and needs to be taken off the books. This presents an obvious avenue for theft by insiders (employee says functional item X is actually broken or they intentionally partially damage it, they record it as broken so it isn't being tracked anymore in inventory, and they walk out the door with it or throw it in the trash out back for their buddy to pick up). Requiring destruction of all decommissioned assets is the only reliable way to stop this from happening.

You're right that it's complex, and maybe she doesn't appreciate it all (I don't know either way), but why is the corporation conspicuously omitted from this list? Their accountability is surely included in "accountability" in general.

It’s worth mentioning that a lot of smaller restaurants and grocery stores are signing up for an app called “too good to go”, where people can sign up to buy highly discounted food at the end of the day (in NYC and a few other cities). These companies could chose to offer a portion of their leftovers on this app, or offer a similar program.

She used to be a consultant for a zero-waste company. I imagine she's very aware of these complexities.

It doesn't make it any less embarrassing for these organizations though. We should be expecting them to do better than this.

How is it "embarrassing" to comply with the law?

I’ve seen companies destroy their stock rather than let it be sold at a lower value or given away. It’s protect their ‘brand’. It’s not all about the law.

There are countless historical examples where it has been embarrassing or unethical to comply with the law.

The article specifically states that she's starting an initiative to advocate for legislative changes. I don't think you're giving her enough credit (or didn't get that far in the article).

Correct on both counts. I stopped reading after that spurious claim. I've read enough click baity garbage to know when to bail.

For consumers, most of the time it’s convenience and practicality. People throw away things they could donate or sell because it’s faster or they don’t know how to easily connect with someone who might want it. Often they don’t feel they would personally would benefit from someone else using the item.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com