Food recycling required as of 1 January, 2022.

[Karl-just-Karl]

I could see it as a voluntary effort. My question is with how it'll be done. That's usually the problem with Progressive policies is that the implementation is poor. Going around and collecting from restaurants, groceries and such perfectly good food that would be tossed and will be used immediately? Yes, I can see that. Pretty much anything else is unworkable. Instead of forcing this, why not let businesses or whatever contribute for a tax write off or some other incentive, instead of doing it to avoid a penalty? After the jab and mask mandates, I'm starting to have a poor opinion of ANYTHING which is mandated.

It would be great if it could be a voluntary effort. Unfortunately, people SUCK when it comes to volunteerism.

The current proposed legislation appears to be required by previous legislation that was passed to address something seen as a problem. Thus works the bureaucracy.

 

[tackdriver]

Sorry, I was off reading: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383

I don't see the hyperbole from the article being represented directly in the context of this legislation/

To answer your question; Yes, IF we were just talking about food YOU purchased.

From my reading of 42652.5 (a)(2), such regulations would mostly involve larger entities, food producers, wholesalers, anybody in the food supplier/warehousing/processing chain.

I see a bunch of BS in a MSM article (which so many claim to loath, despise and mistrust) that will and should get folks riled about intrusion into their kitchens and fridges. What I am referring to was the legislation that was proposed by the OP.

Does this recoup wasted cost involved with farm-to-consumer in the current system?
Does this actually provide aid to those in need, reducing the need to spend tax dollars on aid for them.
Does this reduce the cost to landfills etc.?

If there is a meaningful benefit, when everything is accounted for, then there can be a solution that that doesn't begin and end with "do it because I said you must". If the gov't knows this is a net benifit, then they should roll up the sleeves and develop a plan that incentivizes the "generators" to willingly participate. IDK... pay them X cents on the dollar for the edible waste as a tax credit? Maybe other brilliant ideas?

My problem with these liberal ideas is never the stated intent. It's the immature (not fully developed) and lazy thinking that goes in to their plans. It's like a bunch of teenagers getting high and talking about all their ideas to make the world a wonderful place. "Dude, those grown-ups are soooo stupid. We can just do this! That will be so awsome!"

My guess is that, like so many other "stroke of the pen' solutions, the benifit will be far below expectation, and costs far greater. In an efficient production system, they may be better off to take the cost of this program and use it to buy good food for those in need.

 

[tackdriver]

It would be great if it could be a voluntary effort. Unfortunately, people SUCK when it comes to volunteerism.

The current proposed legislation appears to be required by previous legislation that was passed to address something seen as a problem. Thus works the bureaucracy.

I don't have current numbers on me, but I truely believe that if you look at what Americans DO donate to various good causes it is amazing!! In general, people are very giving. It's not fair say they suck because they didn't voluntarily give even more.

This also begs the discussion about the relationship between increasing aid and the increasing need for aid; and the long term impacts of aid. I studied some of this in Anthropology classes, and it's eye-opening when (even through a liberal lens) you look at the harm that can be done by doing 'good'... but that's another topic on it's own.

 

[wtburnette]

It would be great if it could be a voluntary effort. Unfortunately, people SUCK when it comes to volunteerism.

The current proposed legislation appears to be required by previous legislation that was passed to address something seen as a problem. Thus works the bureaucracy.

I was going to respond, but tackdriver beat me to it and said it better than I could.

 

[Bugzilla]

Not if I remember my college chemistry basics, which there's no guarantee of. Organics are carbon-based created by living things. (organisms, hence 'organic').

Exactly. Limestone created by plants, oil created by plants, plastic created by oil. Cement created with limestone. Definition creep.

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

I don't have current numbers on me, but I truely believe that if you look at what Americans DO donate to various good causes it is amazing!! In general, people are very giving. It's not fair say they suck because they didn't voluntarily give even more.

This also begs the discussion about the relationship between increasing aid and the increasing need for aid; and the long term impacts of aid. I studied some of this in Anthropology classes, and it's eye-opening when (even through a liberal lens) you look at the harm that can be done by doing 'good'... but that's another topic on it's own.

Where people suck is the personal donation of time and effort. I said volunteerism, you said donate. Being the wealthiest society on the planet we have apparently become very accustomed to throwing money at problems and feeling justified/personally rewarded because we have done something. When it comes to people actually doing something, my experience is 1 in 100 or less.

Then again, we digress.

The original point being CA trying to mandate that at least 20% of food being thrown away that is suitable for human consumption NOT be thrown away.

Wow, what a hill to die on.

 

[Alpo]

Gee. I thought this was about composting and methane.

I understand. INGO anti-composting.

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

I was going to respond, but tackdriver beat me to it and said it better than I could.

Say it how ever you wish. I was in a mood to wrestle with pigs today. It's all good. (You know what they say about wrestling with pigs don't you? You'll just end up muddy and the pig will probably like it.)

What a stupid thing for us, conservatives, united in our support of the Constitution and 2a rights to argue about:

Some dip-wad (most likely with a journalism degree) wrote an article that does not adequately characterize proposed legislation, or rather mis-characterizes it just to stir up a reaction, someone posts the legislation that very few people read, they read the article and then launch into vendetta territory.

The funniest thing is the people here that fell for it hook line and sinker.

If you want to get off topic, I would also be interested in discussing why people in the MSM only feel satisfied when they are stirring up controversy.

I've been seeing a lot of weird stuff on INGO lately with Freeman and some other long time members. Lots of anger and hypocrisy amongst ourselves. I just thought I would get in on being the receiver of some mud flinging if not the thrower of some myself.

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

Does this recoup wasted cost involved with farm-to-consumer in the current system?

The legislation addresses that. Feel free to read it. It offers ability to levee fees. I don't necessarily agree with their methodology.

Does this actually provide aid to those in need, reducing the need to spend tax dollars on aid for them.

Not directly addressed. Seems to me like it should be, but it is not.

Does this reduce the cost to landfills etc.?

Addressed in the legislation...about landfills, not necessarily costs. Feel free to read the legislation.

If there is a meaningful benefit, when everything is accounted for, then there can be a solution that that doesn't begin and end with "do it because I said you must". If the gov't knows this is a net benifit, then they should roll up the sleeves and develop a plan that incentivizes the "generators" to willingly participate. IDK... pay them X cents on the dollar for the edible waste as a tax credit? Maybe other brilliant ideas?

I believe there is... preserving food for consumption that can be otherwise written off and thrown away.

Where do those incentive dollars come from? The details are in the legislation, some are kind of murky and deferring to local authorities for final implementation. I don't know how often government can exercise authority without "do it because I said you must". You know that will come with standard government bureaucracy. To receive X you must do Y...

My problem with these liberal ideas is never the stated intent. It's the immature (not fully developed) and lazy thinking that goes in to their plans. It's like a bunch of teenagers getting high and talking about all their ideas to make the world a wonderful place. "Dude, those grown-ups are soooo stupid. We can just do this! That will be so awsome!"

I agree with your sentiment about liberal ideas never working out the way they should.

My guess is that, like so many other "stroke of the pen' solutions, the benifit will be far below expectation, and costs far greater. In an efficient production system, they may be better off to take the cost of this program and use it to buy good food for those in need.

I also 100% agree with this sentiment.

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

Gee. I thought this was about composting and methane.

I understand. INGO anti-composting.

Come on, I can get labeled a liberal without your help thank you.

 

[wtburnette]

Say it how ever you wish. I was in a mood to wrestle with pigs today. It's all good. (You know what they say about wrestling with pigs don't you? You'll just end up muddy and the pig will probably like it.)

What a stupid thing for us, conservatives, united in our support of the Constitution and 2a rights to argue about:

Some dip-wad (most likely with a journalism degree) wrote an article that does not adequately characterize proposed legislation, or rather mis-characterizes it just to stir up a reaction, someone posts the legislation that very few people read, they read the article and then launch into vendetta territory.

The funniest thing is the people here that fell for it hook line and sinker.

If you want to get off topic, I would also be interested in discussing why people in the MSM only feel satisfied when they are stirring up controversy.

I've been seeing a lot of weird stuff on INGO lately with Freeman and some other long time members. Lots of anger and hypocrisy amongst ourselves. I just thought I would get in on being the receiver of some mud flinging if not the thrower of some myself.

You answered your own questions about this below, in that the issue (and my issue) is how it will be executed. Progressives almost never execute in a manner where their pie in the sky ideas materialize into something that actually works and does good. Reading through what was posted and the article, it doesn't look like they have a realistic way to make any of this happen in a manner that will lead to any benefit, but it does look like they'll be setup to levy fines for non-compliance. My cynical self believes this to be the whole point of the legislation, but you feel about it however you want.

 

[Leadeye]

This smells like the classic buying a law to get rich. Not only do they get free money from the state, but the citizens are forced to become their paying customers. It would be interesting to put some faces and names out there to see who is getting rich, I wonder if they are foreign or domestic. Like chinese solar shingles and euro merchant banker windmill makers, it's mining the greed of self serving leadership given the cover of absolute moral superiority by big media.

Always follow the money

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

My cynical self believes this to be the whole point of the legislation, but you feel about it however you want.

Thank you, I will! I don't care for the legislative aspects either.

I like the idea of not throwing out consumable food.

I'm glad that we can have an understanding each of us can have our own viewpoints. The thing I don't understand is why if has to feel so contentious. Maybe it is just me.

 

[wtburnette]

Thank you, I will! I don't care for the legislative aspects either.

I like the idea of not throwing out consumable food.

I'm glad that we can have an understanding each of us can have our own viewpoints. The thing I don't understand is why if has to feel so contentious. Maybe it is just me.

Could be. Hard to gauge things in a forum at times, whereas if you were discussing the issue in person it would likely not be as big of a deal. I don't know. I agree reducing food waste is a great idea. I think that if you take it and educate people and then give them easy ways to do it, it'll be accomplished. The food waste from a household I would imagine is a lot less than from the producers, retailers, restaurants, etc. If you were able to provide a system to these organizations and possibly provide some incentive, even if it's just good press, it would go a longer way IMO than setting up a system designed to fail and then penalizing the organizations and people involved.

 

[wtburnette]

But that might actually solve an issue and no one will likely get rich...

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

If you were able to provide a system to these organizations and possibly provide some incentive, even if it's just good press, it would go a longer way IMO than setting up a system designed to fail and then penalizing the organizations and people involved.

Agree here as well, but don't know how to bring together producers and retailers without oversight or overseeing authority. My cynical self says good press isn't enough. Sticks seem to be a better motivator than carrots. Not the way I wish that it was, just the way it seems to be.

Unfortunately, "setting up a system designed to fail and then penalizing the organizations and people involved." also seems to be all too common today.

If I were king...wait a minute, isn't that just another way this BS starts?

 

[tackdriver]

Say it how ever you wish. I was in a mood to wrestle with pigs today. It's all good. (You know what they say about wrestling with pigs don't you? You'll just end up muddy and the pig will probably like it.)

... I just thought I would get in on being the receiver of some mud flinging if not the thrower of some myself.

I've always thought that pigs, in there natural state, were wonderful and amazing creatures. I don't mind the comparison at all.

Wresting is also a worthwhile and valuable excersize, particularly when done with the right attitude and a proper partner. Done right, the participants develop in positive ways, and even the spectators can benefit. Done wrong, people just get hurt and angry.

As for mud, I don't see how it's a bad thing. Where would we be without it?

Since you wanted to get in on it, it's my honor to oblige. Because it doesn't come through well in a written forum, I'll say that there is no animosity or ill will, and no personal offense intended. I'm simply so overwhelmed by all the bad ideas, and feel the need to wrestle with some of them. You simply jumped in the ring to defend one of them. Seems like wrestling done right so far.

I like the idea of not throwing out consumable food.

I don't like throwing out consumable food either. We absolutely agree on that fundamental point.

Call me crazy, but I'll bet grocery stores and/or restaurants like it less than your or I. They are throwing out their rent, shoes for their kids, gas for their car, a gift for their spouse..................

IF it is truly edible, WHY are they throwing it out? Maybe due to other stupid legislation/regulation? Maybe fear of a lawsuit? Maybe it won't be edible by the time it gets prepared? Maybe a lot of things, but it's not because they just want to waste it. I for one don't want MY kids eating the left over waste that the grocer thought was unfit to sell, just to save the school a buck. They won't it give back to the taxpayer no matter how many pigs you wrestle.

 

[wtburnette]

I have a hard time believing that Kroger throws out stuff that is considered edible. I often find produce and meat on the shelf that is obviously not edible.

 

[tackdriver]

The legislation addresses that. Feel free to read it. It offers ability to levee fees. I don't necessarily agree with their methodology.

I did read the legislation, but I admit I didn't read the news dribble. Maybe thats why I presumed this was targeted at bigger operations rather than households. Anyway, my opinions are not because I fell for some MSM trick. They're all mine, from the legislation and from inside my own mind.
The legislation does not address recouping waste per se. Levying a fine is not the same thing. It could be, if there was much more about the fines, and how the revenue from them would be used to this end, but that's not at all in there.

Not directly addressed. Seems to me like it should be, but it is not.

Correct. IF this is rationally articulated in prior legislation, that this one is directly tied to, then fine, I need that as well. I don't see where the link is. IF NOT inextricably linked, then the core purpose of this legislation must be stated for me to believe it's not just an excuse to fine businesses and bring in revenue.

Addressed in the legislation...about landfills, not necessarily costs. Feel free to read the legislation.

I did, but from your points so far, I think you may have missed mine. IF this leads to savings elsewhere, then those savings could be used to pay for acquiring the 'waste'. For example: If $X is saved in feeding the poor, because of this legislation, then $X could go back into acquiring the waste; If $Y is saved in the cost of collecting garbage and filling landfills, then $Y could go in as well. If this legislation is beneficial, then X+Y+any other benefits would be grater than the cost to the entities they wish to fine. If this isn't the case, everyone is better if they just collect more taxes and buy good food. It's just another feel good mandate where the net benefit is in the red.

When you also add in the benefit gained from the fines... well then it makes sense for someone!

I believe there is... preserving food for consumption that can be otherwise written off and thrown away.

Nothing herein deals with this. There is nothing that indicates that any hungry person will be fed from the proceeds. Nothing.
If a butcher scraps a piece of meat that is consumable, but soon will not be, nothing here indicates how that piece of meat will actually feed anyone. I go back to - the butcher isn't throwing it away for no good reason.

Where do those incentive dollars come from?

That's exactly the point I'm making. IF this were mature, the incentive dollars should come from the true savings in other areas, like the recipients of the 'edible waste', landfill costs, etc. I agree that hungry people is bad. I disagree that a convoluted government plan like this is the most efficient way to do it.

The details are in the legislation, some are kind of murky and deferring to local authorities for final implementation.

It's the "murky and deferring" stuff that usually gets us in trouble.

I don't know how often government can exercise authority without "do it because I said you must". You know that will come with standard government bureaucracy. To receive X you must do Y...

I totally agree. However, since we give the authority, we get to question how it will be used. If we don't get answers that make sense, or that we disagree with, we can take a variety of actions. As for the grocers receiving the right to operate in exchange for Y, what if they just exercise their right to fold up shop or go elsewhere? How does that benefit/cost play out?

I did get a good insight from you. There is a value to the butcher for scrapping the meat and taking an accounting loss. to be effective, from an economics view, the fines will need to be greater than the write off, or its just a choice between two evils, and scrapping still wins, and the gov't gets to collect fines and use them for who knows what. Maybe this is the point.

 

[tackdriver]

... Sticks seem to be a better motivator than carrots. Not the way I wish that it was, just the way it seems to be.

Carrots more than Sticks has worked pretty well in raising my kids and managing my employees. I'll admit, I still don't hand out as many carrots as I should. I generally focused on the objective/mission, laid out expectations and limits, then let them do their thing.

I'm not a mule, and I don't presume others are. If we're going in the right direction, neither carrots nor sticks are often needed.

Sticks are far more common because it's easier for most to find reasons to beat with a stick. It's cheaper and easier in the short term, particularly when the target can't or won't hit back.

As for why I'm so testy this morning, it's because I'm really, really, sick of getting beaten with their sticks. It pisses me off when I see them making even more sticks to beat me, or those around me, with. It makes me want to break their sticks, and beat them with the stubs. I often don't even consider what the stick is for, I just see the stick and don't like it.

I appologize if any of this seems pointed at you. I imagine we'd have an enjoyable conversation over coffee, and agree far more than not. I'm angry at the people who keep relying on sticks, beating whomever they will, for no good result; and I'm particularly angry with the people who keep profiting by manufacturing and marketing sticks!