Considering the massive amounts of food that gets thrown away even before the expiration date, I'm amazed this is even an issue. There was an entire episode of "Last Week Tonight" on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY

Slightly related, throwing food away and the expiration date is a tricky thing.

My dad works at grocery store and initially, they were allowed to bring the food home once it expires for a symbolic cost (10% of the price or something). Soon after that, the employees started to hide food so that they can take it home almost for free. So it didn't last long.

Same thing happens at restaurants. If a restaurant gives away excess food to employees at the end of the night, you're guaranteeing that employees will then cook excess food to take home a shitload.

As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things."

>>> As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things."

Nah, it's just basic human nature. Would be really naive to expect something different.

I don't think it's unfair to say "Human nature is why we can't have nice things."

Yeah, people respond to incentives. It sucks sometimes.

They're not stealing from the 'expired food' area.

Expired food in many countries ends up in food pantries as the date for canned and dried food has more to do with freshness/taste than actual health issues. So its already being socialized.

Unfortunately in the US, most grocers and corporate stores do not donate their food. They lock the dumpster they throw expired food in. I've heard of places that bleach their dumpsters so people don't break in to eat the food.

I do know of a handful of shops that donate, though. They tend to be much smaller.

Stores in an area could work together to supply a food bank?

Or even petition the government to set one up paid by their taxes.

Nevermind the fact that in poorer areas, the likelihood of "justifiable theft" under this doctrine, one would have to imagine, is greater.

Consumption in the absence of real production is not sustainable.

At some point the reduction in margins means the shop worker/repairman/etc that would be paid for his work no longer can be supported/afforded, adding to the poor. At some point shop owners, current and would be, would choose not to do business in then-marginal districts of town: the underserved and marginally poor would be more likely to be further underserved and see the balance tip towards poverty.

All things being equal, there is nothing wrong with compassion. But there are other, better ways. This ruling is neither compassionate, moral, nor ultimately effective. When one considers the unseen consequences of this sort of thinking, along with the abandonment of a legitimate purpose of government, in this myopic ruling, one can only marvel at the direction of Italian society.