ALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1143 posts, RR: 4 Posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 765 times:
From back in March, but I couldn't find anything about this.
Yep, in New York City, you can't help the homeless. Sure, you can donate money that they will then use to buy drugs and alcohol, but you can't donate food anymore. Why? Because the government can't monitor the salt, fat, and fiber content of the food you're donating.
This is what happens when people can't make decisions for themselves and blame McDonalds for making them fat. No, its your own damn fault for not controlling yourself. I'll bet most homeless people are happy to get food and aren't worried about the exact nutritional value of it.
First no more large soft drinks. Now you can't give food to the homeless. What's next? Can't cook your own food in the kitchen, because you might put too much sugar in the sauce?
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6260 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 767 times:
So buy them something from a restaurant or cafe. I'm happy to buy the odd person who really looks like they need it a hot drink or something.
But yes, not a good thing at all to ban people from making donations of food, allowing such basic assistance from those who want to give more than money.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5284 posts, RR: 47 Reply 5, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 770 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 4): To see how this impacts you personally...
Why does it have to impact him for him to open up a thread? Should I never post in European threads? Should we tell the Europeans to stay out of US politics threads?
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8351 posts, RR: 47 Reply 6, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 768 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Thread starter): This is what happens when people can't make decisions for themselves and blame McDonalds for making them fat. No, its your own damn fault for not controlling yourself.
That's the reason for obesity epidemics. If you have several multi-billion dollar corporations selling essentially addictive high sugar, high fat, high sodium fast "food" to people, give them free reign in ad-land (Playgrounds? WTF?!) as well as lobbyville and fail to educate your children on nutrition, you'll make your people sick. People don't need to be protected from themselves, they need to be protected from the onslaught of "Just grab a bite, it's so easy and cheap!" advertising.
As for giving McDonald's products to homeless people, that's just cruel. They'll feel even more hungry when the hyperglycaemia ends... which is the whole point of that rubbish in the first place.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5): Why does it have to impact him for him to open up a thread? Should I never post in European threads? Should we tell the Europeans to stay out of US politics threads?
Well, for a kickoff he MIGHT (hypothetically speaking) be employed by a fast "food" corporation... are you familiar with the term "astroturfing"?
[Edited 2012-11-12 15:15:18]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 767 times:
This is probably the most ridiculous piece of right wing propaganda I have heard this week.
Just as a general rule of thumb: When an article ends the sentences with exclamation marks and uses evocative terms like ''strikes again'', ''edict'', ''food police'' you are probably reading about the misinformed opinion of the author (who in this case appears to be 12 years old). Not about the facts.
By the way, I tried to google the issue as I had not previously heard of it and the only references to this I can find come from the same type of quality news.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3441 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 767 times:
Good thing that such laws, despite the legal idiocy around CA, do not exist here yet. I have given out food to the homeless down the street many times, especially after company events when the options for left over food are "take home or throw away"
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12326 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 766 times:
A sound reason for such a policy - food safety. This is probably to prevent any food borne diseases from unregulated preparers or facilities or from unsafe distribution (for example, foods that should be kept refrigerated are not).
ALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1143 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 6): Well, for a kickoff he MIGHT (hypothetically speaking) be employed by a fast "food" corporation... are you familiar with the term "astroturfing"?
Yeah, as me living in NYC or not means I do or do not work for a fast food corporation? lol. No, I do not work for a fast food corporation.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 4): To see how this impacts you personally...
Fair enough - but not your business.
Quoting something (Reply 7): This is probably the most ridiculous piece of right wing propaganda I have heard this week.
Quoting aloges (Reply 6): As for giving McDonald's products to homeless people, that's just cruel.
I agree. But the example cited in the article is bagels. I don't think there's anything cruel about bagels. Not sure who came up with the idea that this thread is referring to fast food only.
Quoting aloges (Reply 6): That's the reason for obesity epidemics.
I disagree, the reason is because of stupid people who can't think further out than 5 minutes. Same with couples who get pregnant and shouldn't. It's not for lack of condoms. Anyway, neither here nor there I guess.
The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 1355 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 766 times:
It is not illegal to help the homeless. All the linked articles suggest is that donations of food are not accepted. You can still donate money (even specifying which shelter is to benefit); donate clothing, toys and furniture; donate tickets to social and cultural events, etc.
Of course, you can still offer people accommodation, skills training and a job, should you be in a position to do so. So there are plenty of ways to help people without taking yesterday's pizza or grandma's soup.
[Edited 2012-11-12 19:14:02]
“Not to laugh, not to cry, not to hate, but understand.” Spinoza
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4342 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 766 times:
In Houston they had a law which stated if you were going to feed more than 6 homeless people you needed to have the food prepared by a professional commercial kitchen. The reasoning is that individuals and church groups might not prepare the food properly and make the homeless people sick.
This was in the past two years or so and I remember it caused a big uproar with charity groups.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 766 times:
This is degrading to the homeless, as if they needed the extra depreciation.
We are now officially treating them like animals by trying to control the food they're fed.
How about we let them decide what they want to eat. They aren't forced to eat what's given to them. Why shouldn't they have the choice to accept the food that's given to them when the rest of have the choice of what we're eating?
On the other hand, when we give them money, they are free to choose what they're doing with it, so they can eat at McDonald's or, often, spend it at the liquor store...
Not sure if this is some sort of sensationalistic or agenda-motivated report, but if any of it is true, I think priorities need to be straightened.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 1355 posts, RR: 9 Reply 18, posted (6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 16): We are now officially treating them like animals by trying to control the food they're fed.
This is about food donations to shelters administered by NYC. It isn't about you giving something to someone that you meet.
I discussed food waste with EK lounge staff while in HAM last year and was advised that EK (and other caterers) can not donate unused food to the homeless or unemployed due to food storage and handling regulations. This is common practice in may countries.
There is no restriction on money being donated to shelters and that money being used to buy fresh products to provide meals. With private donations of food, unless it is in its original packaging, the centres have no idea of how old it is, whether it has been stored correctly or whether it is likely to cause food poisoning. It's not about restricting choice but assuring quality.
“Not to laugh, not to cry, not to hate, but understand.” Spinoza
helvknight From Switzerland, joined Aug 2006, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Quoting something (Reply 7): This is probably the most ridiculous piece of right wing propaganda I have heard this week.
Just as a general rule of thumb: When an article ends the sentences with exclamation marks and uses evocative terms like ''strikes again'', ''edict'', ''food police'' you are probably reading about the misinformed opinion of the author (who in this case appears to be 12 years old). Not about the facts.
It's very similar to the anti-EU articles you get in British papers like the Mail or the Express,
Take a regulation, apply the most bizarre interpretation that you can think of to it and then publish.
I have a strong feeling that the OP got this from an email sent through the Conservative Email Forwarding Network.
unattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Thread starter): Sure, you can donate money that they will then use to buy drugs and alcohol, but you can't donate food anymore. Why?
Not once in your opening post did you mention "shelters" or the distinction in the article between donating to shelters or directly to the homeless. Why?
ALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1143 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 20): Not once in your opening post did you mention "shelters" or the distinction in the article between donating to shelters or directly to the homeless. Why?
It is the homeless people that are affected in the end. Surely you realize that not every religious organization can afford the time or effort to hand out the left-over food to each individual homeless person on the street. If they can't donate it to shelters anymore, then they can't donate food.
Look, we hear all these stats about 'food insecurity' and starvation and people going hungry. Now I'm getting the feeling from this thread that it's not a big deal - homeless people can get food without the help of donations of leftover food. Which is it? Can't have the cake and eat it too. Either the starvation stats issued are wrong and a discredit to the organizations that produce them, OR this is a big deal.
If shelters don't get enough food, then homeless will turn elsewhere - including dumpsters behind stores and restaurants. Anybody want to condone that?
For those of you saying, "you can still donate money", the point is people donate left-over food and may not or will not donate money. This law prevents a source of food from being donated now. I doubt these organizations that can no longer donate will say "oh, ok, we'll just donate money now" - because they don't have that money to donate necessarily.
The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8351 posts, RR: 47 Reply 22, posted (6 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 21): Look, we hear all these stats about 'food insecurity' and starvation and people going hungry. Now I'm getting the feeling from this thread that it's not a big deal - homeless people can get food without the help of donations of leftover food. Which is it?
How about a social security system that does away with the need for food donations?
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8351 posts, RR: 47 Reply 24, posted (6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23): You don't jump out of an airplane and then ask for a parachute.
Nicely put. The same applies to giving out food in shelters without being able to vouch for its safety: you don't give people health problems and then start caring about the safety of that food - which is probably the background of the article.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2473 posts, RR: 35 Reply 25, posted (6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 783 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 21): Surely you realize that not every religious organization can afford the time or effort to hand out the left-over food to each individual homeless person on the street. If they can't donate it to shelters anymore, then they can't donate food.
Have you thought about the cost to the shelters for sorting and verifying food donations?
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 21): the point is people donate left-over food and may not or will not donate money.
Maybe it is time to stop ordering a lot of food, because we just give leftovers to the homeless. Stop the waste. Order what you need. Give the money saved to the shelter. It will feed a lot more homeless.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 13 Reply 26, posted (6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 788 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 22): How about a social security system that does away with the need for food donations?
I'd embrace it; sadly we don't have such a system here in Germany. To the contrary, the number of those in need has constantly raised over the past years to now 1.5 million. At the same time, the Bavarian State Revenue Office wanted to impose VAT (7%) on those food donations. Granted, the idea died a quick (albeit not painless) dead, but I sure wish it wouldn't have been brought up in the first place.
ALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1143 posts, RR: 4 Reply 27, posted (6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 782 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 25): Maybe it is time to stop ordering a lot of food, because we just give leftovers to the homeless. Stop the waste. Order what you need. Give the money saved to the shelter. It will feed a lot more homeless.
Hey, if you can come up with a sure-fire way of ensuring that guests eat ALL food that is there, and at the same time don't ever want any more than what was there, you could probably be a rich man.
Quoting aloges (Reply 24): you don't give people health problems and then start caring about the safety of that food
People are trying to prevent health problems from starvation when they donate food. So, to prevent potential health problems from unsafe food (which, in my opinion, is more likely to come from random strangers donating food to a single homeless person than from an established organization donating some leftovers), we just starve the homeless.
Wow, good plan.
Obviously we don't see eye-to-eye on this.
The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3441 posts, RR: 5 Reply 28, posted (6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 785 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 27):
Hey, if you can come up with a sure-fire way of ensuring that guests eat ALL food that is there,
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 27): People are trying to prevent health problems from starvation when they donate food.
I would also add that the pizzas and fancy sandwiches we bring in the office through catering are clean and much better than food leftovers extracted from a trash bin. It is something that we often take home with us at the end of the day, not something that is inedible. But, if people would rather see that thrown in the trash, fine by me, i won't insist on giving it to someone who will end up sleeping on an empty stomach.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2473 posts, RR: 35 Reply 29, posted (6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 785 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 27): Hey, if you can come up with a sure-fire way of ensuring that guests eat ALL food that is there, and at the same time don't ever want any more than what was there, you could probably be a rich man.
Why do you jump to extremes? You did it in the OP. For example, stating you can't give food to homeless when clearly it is that certain shelters will not accept it, BIG difference. Even worse, the suggestion that giving money is equal to buying drugs and alcohol.
What I stated was to stop the wasteful over ordering justified by claiming that anything extra isn't really wasteful because it is given to the homeless. Don't turn that in to crazy extremes.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
ALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1143 posts, RR: 4 Reply 31, posted (6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 781 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 29): clearly it is that certain shelters will not accept it
No, that is not true. You're the one twisting the truth here. There is, according to the article, a LAW saying they CANNOT accept it. Far, far, far different from shelters just "not accepting" it. If individual shelters decide not to accept food, that is fine. But to have a blanket ruling from the government saying "no more leftover food donations" is quite a different story.
Quoting cmf (Reply 29): Even worse, the suggestion that giving money is equal to buying drugs and alcohol.
So, what do you think homeless people do when you give them $20 on the side of the road? Donate it to the red cross? Use it to buy a book? Yes, donating money to a shelter ensures it is put to good use, but the whole point is people donating leftover food without having to donate money. They're still helping how they can.
Quoting cmf (Reply 29): What I stated was to stop the wasteful over ordering justified by claiming that anything extra isn't really wasteful because it is given to the homeless. Don't turn that in to crazy extremes.
So, let's say your hypothetical daughter was getting married. Wouldn't you err on the side of too much food, because you want to make the guests happy and your daughter happy? Or would you err on the side of too little food and would tell the guests "too bad. You can go home and eat, or there's a Wendy's down the road". I don't get the impression from the article that the gentleman noted was giving hundreds of bagels at once for years and years.
As I said before, which everybody conveniently over-looked, there are organizations that claim we have a huge problem with hunger both in the U.S. and around the world. If we take away a potential food source for hungry people, we make the problem worse. I fail to see how that is an extreme thing to say.
So, either denounce those organizations as liars, or face the fact that a law like this right now only makes the problem worse. Should we be worried about food safety for everybody? Yes, of course. I never said otherwise. Is it right to take away food like this just because it might possibly (but probably not) be unsafe? I don't think so, because in doing so, we make people go hungry.
The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4763 posts, RR: 9 Reply 32, posted (6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 779 times:
I'm not sure how left-overs got into the discussion, because there is no way to donate such safely, outside of just inviting the homeless in your restaurant at the end of the shift or something similar (that some places do). Left-overs are to be eaten right away or discarded. In fact since McDonald's has been mentioned, they put burgers in the trash if they have been sitting for something like 10 minutes.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2473 posts, RR: 35 Reply 33, posted (6 months 5 days ago) and read 774 times:
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 31): No, that is not true. You're the one twisting the truth here.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong but my understanding is that it only affects public shelters.
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 31): So, what do you think homeless people do when you give them $20 on the side of the road? Donate it to the red cross? Use it to buy a book? Yes, donating money to a shelter ensures it is put to good use, but the whole point is people donating leftover food without having to donate money. They're still helping how they can.
Most of them buy food. If you worry so much about them buying drugs and alcohol then give the money to the shelter. They will get much more for those $20 than you or the homeless will.
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 31): Wouldn't you err on the side of too much food, because you want to make the guests happy and your daughter happy?
I'm coming from a restaurant family. Throwing away food is extremely expensive so there are tight controls. A wedding is actually a simple event to predict as you know how many people will be there and almost always it is a set menu.
But back to your point. It isn't that there is no overage. It is that you do keep the overage at a minimum. You do not justify a lot of overage with that "the food isn't wasted because we give it to the homeless."
As I said, order a little bit less, it will be enough, and give the money saved to the shelter. They will get much more food for that money than you would.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
You can thank those Blank damned lawyers!. Even before Nanny Bloomberg came to rule NYC, thanks to our sue happy society and those leeches called attorneys, good food has to go to waste. Besides the homeless getting short sh-rifted, the good old days of taking home good left over food are long gone. I'm old enough to remember my Bar Mitzvah (back in 1969). My parents worked hard and scrimped so I could have a nice one. The caterer had tons of left over food. My parents loaded up the Country Squire wagon and hauled the goodies home. They froze it and we enjoyed special treats for months and none of us got those nasty evil food diseases the lawyers and nannies proclaim are ever present. My parents had the common sense how to handle food. Most of us in this country have the common sense on how to handle food in spite of our being dumbed down to such sh*t as Honey Boo Boo, Twilight, Justin Bieber and stupid obnoxious marathon Black Friday cattle car sales. NYC, you should be ashamed of yourself for such stupidity. What now? Are you going to deny food to those poor sould who were maimed by Hurricane Sandy because there's the fear of too much salt, sugar and trans fats? Shame on you Mayor Nanny Bloomberg.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1143 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6260 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8351 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3441 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 1355 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2006, 995 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
