Against donating expired good

Ethical & Financial Point

 This scheme does not save them money. They are still wasting money on buying food that is
not going to be used by the business.
 They should create a better business practice where in they don’t have food leftover and
they do not waste money on surplus food.
 Create a system by using the past purchases to figure out how much they end up buying
every time they purchase food and see how much on average they end up donating. The
could find the difference between the two and then order what they use on average. It
would be better for them to order the extra food they need than to waste money on food
they don’t need.
 Why serve your customers fresh food and not give the NPOs fresh food. If the NPOs can
have food that one day over the expiry date then why not you customers
 It should not be seen as if the company is using donations as an excuse of throwing away
their old food.
 They can use the same system for finding out how much they use on average, and still order
the same amount and give what they were going to have extra and donate it while it is still
fresh.
 We are told that they donate ALL the food is one day past the expiry date. Since it is a
restaurant, we can assume that the have a wide range of food products which they do give
for donation. The Consumer Goods Council of South Africa released Food Donation
guidelines on the 01 March 2021. In the guidelines it does list meats, seafoods, poultry as
ready for consumption food as high risk potentially hazardous as they are highly perishable
food. They are still acceptable for donations however this is if they are safely handled, stored
and prepared under correct temperatures. If any the food donated was not treated right and
someone was to get infected, then both the NGO and Grants Kitchen could be held liable.
N.B The guideline are not laws meaning that if they aren’t followed it is not illegal however
since they were written up by a competent body on the subject, they can be used to show
gross negligence????(Double Check)
 Section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) provides for strict liability in
that each of the producer, importer, distributor or retailer of a particular product is strictly
liable for any harm caused where that product was unsafe, had a product failure, defect or
hazard or was provided with inadequate instructions or warnings in relation to any hazard
arising from or associated with the use of the product. Each of the producer, importer,
distributor and retailer of the product is jointly and severally liable.
 Section 61 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) provides for strict liability in
that each of the producer, importer, distributor or retailer of a particular product is strictly
liable for any harm caused where that product was unsafe, had a product failure, defect or
hazard or was provided with inadequate instructions or warnings in relation to any hazard
arising from or associated with the use of the product. Each of the producer, importer,
distributor and retailer of the product is jointly and severally liable.
 In terms of section 61 of the CPA, consumers no longer have to prove negligence on the part
of the supplier of a product that has caused harm. However:
 A particular supplier such as a distributor who supplies unsafe product or a product with
insufficient warnings may, however, only escape liability if he can show that the product
characteristic that made the product unsafe, the defect or the hazard, was not present at the
time that he sold or otherwise supplied the goods in question. In the case of a distributor or
retailer of products, who is not engaged in manufacturing or importing products, liability can
only be escaped if it is unreasonable to have expected that distributor or retailer to have
discovered a problem with the products, having regard to the role played by that person in
marketing them.
 If anything were to happen, it would be hard for Grants Kitchen will not be able to prove
that those characteristics that made the product unsafe, hazardous and defect, was not
present because all it will show is that they donated the food past the expiry date.
 If they can show, who will be responsible for checking? Have they hired someone specifically
to check for these defects which would spend more money than necessary. And if it ones of
the staff, then it is wasting the workers time to do their jobs.
 Big retailers have no-waste policy’s however they have the finances to implement proper
structures to facilitate the donations of their used foods.
 It does not say whether they donate all the food the day after it expires or the group the
food the expires around the same time together but both methods could lead to a problem.
o 1. If the donate the day after it expires, they waste on transportation costs delivery
the food to the NGOs
o 2. If they group them together, the food that expires first will still wait awhile before
being donated and become more fresh.
 Avoid using the words spoils or expires because the best before date doesn’t mean it spoils
after that date, it just means its not as fresh.
 Make a distinction between the best before date and use by date.