It is way more effort for them to donate their oversupply than to throw it out. This just reeks of wanting to be mad for the sake of being mad. Exact same people would be complaining if they had thrown it out instead of donating.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

afaik businesses can usually get tax deductions for donating food, so considering that it's still not very much effort (more than the near-zero effort to trash it, of course), I don't think we have evidence for it being "the opposite of nefarious" and it still overall looks like it's more likely negative.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe the Kroger has a reason to believe the lettuce is not contaminated? They might not have served it because people asked to not have it, or to avoid people sending back food or not liking it. But that's all speculative

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I can agree to the objection that drawing a conclusion relies on speculation (or information not in the OP), but that's why I asked because the other person was making an assertion in the opposite direction.