unlikely: For the record, I would allow restaurants to donate leftover food to hungry without being sued, too. But my name isn't bill, it's Max.

/I don't know who this "Bill" guy is but he sounds really wishy washy. Sometimes he's a decent sort, but sometimes he's a dick.

//In this case he seems all right.

You never saw Schoolhouse Rock did you?

Thanks, Bill!

unlikely: For the record, I would allow restaurants to donate leftover food to hungry without being sued, too. But my name isn't bill, it's Max.

/I don't know who this "Bill" guy is but he sounds really wishy washy. Sometimes he's a decent sort, but sometimes he's a dick.

//In this case he seems all right.

The store I work at started donating food that was just going out of date to the local food banks. We pull it out on the morning of the expiration date, then freeze it and keep it like that until the food bank truck comes to pick it up. Better than just throwing it away like we used to.

That Bill is a hellofaguy.

Bill once pulled me out of a snowdrift.

The bill will, I am sure, do this.

Is this the same Bill that Google and Yahoo are all pissed off at? Because he got them really riled up and they're pretty powerful. I wouldn't try to be associated with him too soon if I were you.

It's not a bad idea, but I'd prefer seeing immunity for negligence, rather than immunity from any suit. Give out food and people get sick for have an allergic reaction? Okay. Give out rotten food because you're a dick? Not okay.

It's truly sad that common sense requires action by the government to legalize...

Common sense. It's great that we have to put it into law because otherwise everything is about as far from common sense as you can get.

Excellent!

I'd like to see this extended beyond restaurants. I used to work at a gas station long ago. At 11:59PM, all of our donuts, bagels and other bakery items were all good to sell. At midnight, they suddenly became inedible and had to be thrown away. Same with those packaged sandwiches you can buy at gas stations. They have an expiration date. At 11:59PM, they're good. At midnight, they all get thrown away. Hell, same with milk. Milk has a sell by date. The sell by date is different than the "you can no longer drink this milk date" but that didn't matter, at midnight we dumped the milk down the drain and returned the empty container.

Lot of wasted food, especially when there are a lot of hungry people in the country.

Theaetetus: It's not a bad idea, but I'd prefer seeing immunity for negligence, rather than immunity from any suit. Give out food and people get sick for have an allergic reaction? Okay. Give out rotten food because you're a dick? Not okay.

I would prefer that any lawyer bringing a frivolous lawsuit against a charity be lit on fire, but we can't have everything.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think the idea is that nobody will even try and argue negligence, incompetence or whatever. I would hope purposely poisoning people would still be assault.

I've smuggled perfectly good food out the back door of workplaces because management was afraid of giving it to charity. They were never able to cite a case of being sued for this.

Unavailable for comment.

Does this mean they can't turn down my muffin stumps?

Arkanaut: Does this mean they can't turn down my muffin stumps?

Or my pizza crusts?

Just don't try to give them the muffin stumps. Or else, you know...

Arkanaut: Does this mean they can't turn down my muffin stumps?

Why I oughta....

When I worked at a restaurant I was surprised at the amount of food that was thrown out. It always made me laugh that at one place the boss observed you throwing out the food since the managers were worried that employees wouldn't sell the stuff the employees wanted to take home themselves.

"Participating restaurants could also take a tax credit. "

I'm in favor of this idea, but if they want total immunity from any liability, no matter how egregiously irresponsible any given restaurant owner might be, then there should be no tax credit. As stated here, this is an invitation to unethical restaurant owners to donate what they know, or strongly suspect, to be tainted food because they can wring a few bucks out of it.

And beyond this, even if there is no tax credit, there is still some degree of liability. I don't know how the line would be defined, but again, if you knowingly and recklessly donate food you know to be tainted, then there's no excuse. If one person can get away with that, then charity organizations will instantly say, "We can't take any more donations from restaurants because of this one jerk."

So the deal would have to be, so long as you take reasonable precautions and don't donate food you know is not fit for human consumption, you're shielded.

In Washington State, our local Olive Garden donates to the mission. This past Friday, they brought lobster tail, shrimp, sausages, and a variety of pastas. It was truly amazing watching the homeless folks eating like kings.

skinink: When I worked at a restaurant I was surprised at the amount of food that was thrown out. It always made me laugh that at one place the boss observed you throwing out the food since the managers were worried that employees wouldn't sell the stuff the employees wanted to take home themselves.

I used to work at some high end restaurants in Seattle. After Sunday brunch it was horrifying how much food was thrown out. We couldn't donate it, but the restaurant management let us take home whatever we wanted. I think it probably differed because it was brunch - not really a way you can prevent something from being sold at a buffet.

I know it supplemented the meals of a lot of the people who had kids and were struggling to make ends meet.

/I took pounds of bacon
//bacon, bacon, bacon

lennavan: I'd like to see this extended beyond restaurants. I used to work at a gas station long ago. At 11:59PM, all of our donuts, bagels and other bakery items were all good to sell. At midnight, they suddenly became inedible and had to be thrown away. Same with those packaged sandwiches you can buy at gas stations. They have an expiration date. At 11:59PM, they're good. At midnight, they all get thrown away. Hell, same with milk. Milk has a sell by date. The sell by date is different than the "you can no longer drink this milk date" but that didn't matter, at midnight we dumped the milk down the drain and returned the empty container.

Lot of wasted food, especially when there are a lot of hungry people in the country.

I agree with you on this but there is one catch. There are folks out there who will be mightily offended to be given food that has passed over that "magic minute" mark to which you refer. Do you expect them to eat your garbage?

What's even worse, to my way of thinking, is that in Michigan, at least, it is against the law for restaurants to donate food that hasn't been prepared specifically for donation. Example: I was in charge of making arrangements for a banquet. It was going to be a buffet. We had reservations, I had called the restaurant with the number, they prepared the correct amount of food and we knew that we would be billed for the number that had been given them. Night of the banquet comes and there is a severe snowstorm. Being Michigan, we don't cancel but a lot of the wimpier attendees didn't show. Only about 20% of the number reserved actually showed. So I talked to the banquet captain and suggested that the leftovers be given to a local homeless shelter. He refused, saying that it was against the law to do so. I told him that, since we were paying for all of those dinners, we were going to get all that food and asked what we had to do to get it to the homeless shelter, damn the law. He allowed that, as customers, we were allowed to take home doggy bags and that, if we wanted to prepare doggy bags from the buffet, he would be more than happy to allow that (he even gave us a huge stack of EPS containers). So our group adjourned the business meeting (since there were so few people there) and spent the rest of the night putting together containers of food as meals. I had already called the homeless shelter and they found someone with a van who would venture out in the snowstorm and pick all of it up. But I remain embarrassed that my state has a law on the books that actually prohibits restaurants donating leftovers such as we had without going through the kind of rigmarole we did.

Sounds awfully socialist to me. Better err on the side of caution and strike this bill down for the good of America. Slippery slope and all...

This bill is a sham because the people receiving the donated leftovers are risking their health.
I work in a restaurant in Montreal and I am the only staff member who does not eat leftovers from customers' plates. It is not because I am better than anyone or cuz I don't like giant shrimp. It is cuz I don't want to get HEPATITIS or some other illness. I don't even eat off of my friends' plates when they offer to share their meals when dining out together.

Captain Carrot Cake: This bill is a sham because the people receiving the donated leftovers are risking their health.
I work in a restaurant in Montreal and I am the only staff member who does not eat leftovers from customers' plates. It is not because I am better than anyone or cuz I don't like giant shrimp. It is cuz I don't want to get HEPATITIS or some other illness. I don't even eat off of my friends' plates when they offer to share their meals when dining out together.

Not sure if serious or seriously ignorant.

Any other industry turn their overproduction into a deduction?

Captain Carrot Cake: This bill is a sham because the people receiving the donated leftovers are risking their health.
I work in a restaurant in Montreal and I am the only staff member who does not eat leftovers from customers' plates. It is not because I am better than anyone or cuz I don't like giant shrimp. It is cuz I don't want to get HEPATITIS or some other illness. I don't even eat off of my friends' plates when they offer to share their meals when dining out together.

Yeah, I don't think donating that will be legal. Think about fish that won't make it past the weekend, potatoes/rice/salad/complimentary bread and other food that was prepared in large batches based on an estimated amount of guests.

JoeBobMel: In Washington State, our local Olive Garden donates to the mission. This past Friday, they brought lobster tail, shrimp, sausages, and a variety of pastas. It was truly amazing watching the homeless folks eating like kings.

Kings that eat at that kind of restaurant?! Lol OK. Maybe the people helping than should get that food aswell? Also call me a bad person bit if you are 'homeless' but you get to sleep indoors at night and people bring you lobsters too eat what is the point in getting a job. Many of these people have thousands of dollars saved away if you think about it no expenses begging all day.

Captain Carrot Cake: This bill is a sham because the people receiving the donated leftovers are risking their health.
I work in a restaurant in Montreal and I am the only staff member who does not eat leftovers from customers' plates. It is not because I am better than anyone or cuz I don't like giant shrimp. It is cuz I don't want to get HEPATITIS or some other illness. I don't even eat off of my friends' plates when they offer to share their meals when dining out together.

Rofl. Ok so it's better they have to go to the bin instead? Rats pigeons feces etc.

FTA: "Participating restaurants could also take a tax credit.

My thoughts are, despite the spin, the restaurants want the tax credit more than they are interested in helping the hungry.

It is really a win-win for the restaurants. For example, a restaurant is paid $2000 to cater a small event. That fee pays for all of the food whether consumed or not, in addition to the servers. At the conclusion of the event if there is $500 in food that is not consumed, the restaurant would then get a $500 tax credit for simply dropping off the unconsumed food at the food bank. The restaurant is paid on the front end for the food and then gets a tax credit on the back end. Double dipping... which results in lower tax revenue which has to be made up somewhere else. I wouldn't have a problem if the restaurant would receive a set amount for dropping of the food or a small percentage of the value of the food, but not the total value, especially since they were already paid in full for it.

Question: Is the person who paid for the catered event equally entitled to a tax credit, and immunity from suit, if they wish to drive the unconsumed food over to food bank? That would allow the person who actually paid for the food to recoup some of the costs of catering the event, and there wouldn't be any double dipping.

This might fall under the "good samaritan" type laws for people who are trying to help others.

Captain Carrot Cake: This bill is a sham because the people receiving the donated leftovers are risking their health.
I work in a restaurant in Montreal and I am the only staff member who does not eat leftovers from customers' plates. It is not because I am better than anyone or cuz I don't like giant shrimp. It is cuz I don't want to get HEPATITIS or some other illness. I don't even eat off of my friends' plates when they offer to share their meals when dining out together.

Yeah... they're not scraping plates into a donate bin. They're donating the unused meals. I prepare prime rib for 50 on Friday, but it rains heavily and only 30 people eat prime rib in my restaurant. Instead of throwing away 20 servings of prime rib, I can now donate that food to a shelter.

Leftovers off of the plate are for the pigs.

BesiktasBoy83: if you are 'homeless' but you get to sleep indoors at night and people bring you lobsters too eat what is the point in getting a job. Many of these people have thousands of dollars saved away if you think about it no expenses begging all day

Sounds like an idyllic lifestyle. I hope you get to join them someday.

Rozinante: Theaetetus: It's not a bad idea, but I'd prefer seeing immunity for negligence, rather than immunity from any suit. Give out food and people get sick for have an allergic reaction? Okay. Give out rotten food because you're a dick? Not okay.

I would prefer that any lawyer bringing a frivolous lawsuit against a charity be lit on fire, but we can't have everything.

I would prefer that people would overcome their innate hatred of lawyers and use common sense, and not call a lawsuit "frivolous" when a restaurant serves rotten food.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think the idea is that nobody will even try and argue negligence, incompetence or whatever. I would hope purposely poisoning people would still be assault.

Depends on what the wording of the bill is. If they're immune from suit, then they're immune from suit, period. Even for assault.

I've smuggled perfectly good food out the back door of workplaces because management was afraid of giving it to charity. They were never able to cite a case of being sued for this.

Say you work at a restaurant that makes vats of chili, and there's always some leftover at the end of the night. You bring it to the local food pantry who are delighted with the donation. It's particularly delicious because your secret ingredient - peanut butter - acts as a binder to really bring the whole thing together. The pantry dishes it out to needy families, and one small child with a peanut allergy goes into shock and dies.
They're homeless, you work for a wealthy restaurant, and through negligence, you just killed their kid. Frivolous though, right?

Yes, I was serious. And, no, I am not ignorant. I know of wait staff who have gotten sick from eating leftovers in an expensive steakhouse here in Montreal. Why do you think restaurants are afraid of donating leftovers in the first place?

I quickly glanced over the article, but my point was that donating half-eaten food off of someone else's plate is a horrible idea. Donating unsold prepared food is fine. Donating day-old bagels and muffins is fine.

I don't think the restaurant should get a tax break for donating food. When you tie the donations to financial incentives, it opens the door for abuse.

The whole point should be to keep food from going to waste; not to improve the restaurant's bottom line at the expense of taxpayers.

namegoeshere:

Yeah... they're not scraping plates into a donate bin. They're donating the unused meals. I prepare prime rib for 50 on Friday, but it rains heavily and only 30 people eat prime rib in my restaurant. Instead of throwing away 20 servings of prime rib, I can now donate that food to a shelter.

Leftovers off of the plate are for the pigs.

That is wonderful news about the prime rib.

Trance750: jaytkay: BesiktasBoy83: if you are 'homeless' but you get to sleep indoors at night and people bring you lobsters too eat what is the point in getting a job. Many of these people have thousands of dollars saved away if you think about it no expenses begging all day

Sounds like an idyllic lifestyle. I hope you get to join them someday.

Now there are some true down-on-your-luck stories with the homeless, but don't kid yourself into beleving that ALL of them are simply circumstantial.

For some people it's a life-style, simply because they choose NOT to work

CSB: When I was a kid, I knew this elderly gentleman (I was about 7 or 8 at the time, he was about 50-ish or so) and he lived in a run-down trailer and lived off hand-outs and whatever charity he could find

My dad asked him one time 'You're able bodied, why don't you get out and work' and he replied 'You just don't get it. I don't WANT to work'

I'm sure that's exactly what he said to your dad and your dad repeated it to verbatim and you remember it with the utmost accuracy. We could ask this guy too, but we don't know him, he lives in Canada.

Theaetetus: Rozinante: Theaetetus: It's not a bad idea, but I'd prefer seeing immunity for negligence, rather than immunity from any suit. Give out food and people get sick for have an allergic reaction? Okay. Give out rotten food because you're a dick? Not okay.

I would prefer that any lawyer bringing a frivolous lawsuit against a charity be lit on fire, but we can't have everything.

I would prefer that people would overcome their innate hatred of lawyers and use common sense, and not call a lawsuit "frivolous" when a restaurant serves rotten food.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think the idea is that nobody will even try and argue negligence, incompetence or whatever. I would hope purposely poisoning people would still be assault.

Depends on what the wording of the bill is. If they're immune from suit, then they're immune from suit, period. Even for assault.

I've smuggled perfectly good food out the back door of workplaces because management was afraid of giving it to charity. They were never able to cite a case of being sued for this.

Say you work at a restaurant that makes vats of chili, and there's always some leftover at the end of the night. You bring it to the local food pantry who are delighted with the donation. It's particularly delicious because your secret ingredient - peanut butter - acts as a binder to really bring the whole thing together. The pantry dishes it out to needy families, and one small child with a peanut allergy goes into shock and dies.
They're homeless, you work for a wealthy restaurant, and through negligence, you just killed their kid. Frivolous though, right?

1. NO restaurant would have peanut anything as a "secret ingredient". It would be clearly labeled as containing peanuts.

2. No parent of a child with severe food allergies would feed their child something without knowing the ingredients. If they did, the neglegence is on them, not the maker of the chilli (as long as the chef did not hide the presence of peanuts)

Captain Carrot Cake: Yes, I was serious. And, no, I am not ignorant. I know of wait staff who have gotten sick from eating leftovers in an expensive steakhouse here in Montreal. Why do you think restaurants are afraid of donating leftovers in the first place?

I quickly glanced over the article, but my point was that donating half-eaten food off of someone else's plate is a horrible idea. Donating unsold prepared food is fine. Donating day-old bagels and muffins is fine.

You're the only one here talking about donating half-eaten food off someone's plate.

namegoeshere: Theaetetus: Rozinante: Theaetetus: It's not a bad idea, but I'd prefer seeing immunity for negligence, rather than immunity from any suit. Give out food and people get sick for have an allergic reaction? Okay. Give out rotten food because you're a dick? Not okay.

I would prefer that any lawyer bringing a frivolous lawsuit against a charity be lit on fire, but we can't have everything.

I would prefer that people would overcome their innate hatred of lawyers and use common sense, and not call a lawsuit "frivolous" when a restaurant serves rotten food.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think the idea is that nobody will even try and argue negligence, incompetence or whatever. I would hope purposely poisoning people would still be assault.

Depends on what the wording of the bill is. If they're immune from suit, then they're immune from suit, period. Even for assault.

I've smuggled perfectly good food out the back door of workplaces because management was afraid of giving it to charity. They were never able to cite a case of being sued for this.

Say you work at a restaurant that makes vats of chili, and there's always some leftover at the end of the night. You bring it to the local food pantry who are delighted with the donation. It's particularly delicious because your secret ingredient - peanut butter - acts as a binder to really bring the whole thing together. The pantry dishes it out to needy families, and one small child with a peanut allergy goes into shock and dies.
They're homeless, you work for a wealthy restaurant, and through negligence, you just killed their kid. Frivolous though, right?

1. NO restaurant would have peanut anything as a "secret ingredient". It would be clearly labeled as containing peanuts.

On the menu, sure... But with a food pantry donation, they may not always remember to bring along the prix fixe menu, no?

2. No parent of a child with severe food allergies would feed their child something without knowing the ingredients. If they did, the neglegence is on them, not the maker of the chilli (as long as the chef did not hide the presence of peanut ...

And if the chef did, because there was no menu, and he dropped off the chili and took off, then how are they not negligent?
Additionally, negligence isn't like a conch shell you can pass around a bunch of screaming kids... it's possible for multiple parties to be negligent and share liability.