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?