[zb3]

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]

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.

[UltraSane]

Giving away food is pretty cheap. You just put it on a shelf with a big "FREE" sign.

[zb3]

> 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?