Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs. Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.

▲

zb3 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

While my sibling comment said it all, note that destroying them also costs money, hence if those can't be sold, it's a loss of profit already, lower the price and let people eat..

> higher costs.

Higher costs of what? Of those new fruits? Well, maybe wasting food should cost?

▲

s1artibartfast 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive.

> Well, maybe wasting food should cost? Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.

	▲	zb3 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive. But at least first lowering prices until they reach 0 seems cheaper? > Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it. Because that's a vile thing to do when someone else wants to eat it, don't you think?

▲

UltraSane 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The concern isn't lost revenue it is empty stomachs. You should care more about the empty stomachs.

	▲	s1artibartfast 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If people dont make money, then nobody grows the food or the store closes. I also dont think hunger is a real problem in the US. Death from gluttony is far more common. For those who are hungry, there are already oppurtinities to get food. Putting more free food there doesnt help if they dont have access, or if they are a crackhead.