[danepowell]

Unless you're talking about, say, botulism-contaminated food products that a grocery store discarded and a dumpster diver "recycled" on Amazon. Not saying that exact case has happened, but surely there's a more nuanced take on this than "recycling is good".

[turtlebits]

If it's past the sell by date, then return it. I've gotten old items from the grocery store, it happens.

I'm happy to give Amazon more leniency since their customer service is excellent and they make it very easy to return items.

[droithomme]

Well the only dumpster food item they confirmed sold on amazon the WSJ personally dove for and placed on amazon themselves.

Then they quote some basically anonymous people saying they list trash salvage on amazon sometimes or did in the past, without verifying so or giving any examples of what sorts of things they sold.

Is anyone other than the WSJ listing contaminated food on amazon? No evidence is provided.

[danShumway]

This is such a weird response to me.

The WSJ personally proved that Amazon doesn't have additional seller checks around food suppliers to make sure they're reputably sourcing their products. But because we don't have evidence that people are (currently) taking advantage of that, our response should be different?

If my website has an XSS vulnerability that exposes my database, and someone tells me about it, can I downplay the issue by saying, "you don't have evidence that anyone is currently exploiting it"? Would you feel comfortable continuing to use my software if that was my response?

> Attempts to list a protein powder, a pea-powder dietary supplement and a face sheet mask—all from the dive—elicited a request from Amazon for proof of purchase.

Amazon does have quality control metrics for some items, but doesn't use them for food -- meaning that in practice buying food on Amazon may not be much safer than buying food on Ebay. In that sense, think of the WSJ article as a public disclosure of a vulnerability in Amazon's quality control measures. A vulnerability that we observably know exists because the WSJ personally verified that it existed.

[penagwin]

Given that it's potentially profitable and works, who cares if it's done in a widespread way? That fact that it easily could is the problem IMO.

[droithomme]

> That fact that it easily could...

It's also easy to add poison dust to toys one resells, or razor blades to candies.

However, both these acts are illegal.

What is also illegal is what the WSJ did. Selling food items of any kind in interstate commerce, including all internet sales, is strictly regulated by the FDA, and sellers must have a facility license.

https://www.fda.gov/food/food-industry/how-start-food-busine...

> If you are importing food products, conducting internet sales, and/or shipping food products outside of your state, you must register as a facility.

WSJ is not registered with the FDA as a facility and therefore is in violation of federal law. They should be charged, prosecuted, and fined. Given the violation was willful, egregious, and put people at risk, criminal prosecutions with jail time should be considered as well.

Selling food taken out of dumpsters in interstate commerce is not legally permitted.

Amazon's solution here is simple. Anyone listing food needs to prove they are an FDA registered facility. This includes all amazon properties as well. Amazon is also engaging in illegal activity if they are not FDA registered and following all regulations. Which they clearly are not. Enforce existing laws. Including maximum fines and prison time as necessary.