Poverty and hunger continue to be a major problem across the country. However, in a decision that baffles and outrages many, Costco has decided that it will not allow millions of dollars worth of peanut butter to be given away. Instead, the company has ordered that the food be dumped in a New Mexico landfill.
The almost one million jars of peanut butter were produced by Sunland Inc shortly before a salmonella outbreak in 2012 the forced the company into bankruptcy. However, this peanut butter is not tainted. Accordingly, there was a request to allow the food to be donated to food banks or even sold to companies serving institutional agencies like prisons. The food has been stored in a warehouse since the shutdown and Costco had initially agreed to a sale at low cost as ordered by the bankruptcy trustee. Then however the company suddenly backed out and said that it would not accept any other course than dumping the food in a landfill.
The food is worth almost $3 million and involves 950,000 jars – or about 25 tons.
It is highly disturbing that a company would waste 25 tons of food rather than allow food banks to use the food to reduce hunger among families across the country.
Such decisions are often treated as simpler by corporate executives, though the company now faces a public relations backlash.
Chrysler has faced the same backlash when it told the South Puget Sound Community College that it had to crush a rare original Dodge Viper that had been used to teach students on mechanics. It was one of 93 such cars donated to educational institutions and considered collector’s items by car aficionados. The cars would be worth $250,000 in a museum — money that could go to education if they school did not need the vehicle for lessons. The company however dismissed the objections and said that it never said that schools could keep the vehicles:
Approximately 10 years ago, Chrysler Group donated a number of Dodge Viper vehicles to various trade schools for educational purposes. As part of the donation process, it is standard procedure — and stipulated in our agreements — that whenever vehicles are donated to institutions for education purposes that they are to be destroyed when they are no longer needed for their intended educational purposes.
Once again, I am mystified by the sheer waste of the decision. Any liability issues can be addressed by contractual restrictions and waivers — and no sale options. Why destroy these vehicles being used by schools for students to learn a trade? Costco and Chrysler clearly have the right to make such decisions but the logic (and more importantly the humanity) of the decisions escapes me.
Darren, Blame trial lawyers. One sickness, even if unrelated, and Costco’s tit is in a wringer. Costco is a good corporate citizen. It’s too bad for the bad publicity.
Darren, I do agree that they could’ve sifted thorough the jars and found the ones that were intact and randomly tested them for safety. I read that this peanut butter came from the same plant that was involved with the salmonella contamination in their peanut butter a couple of years ago, but if tested and safe, they should’ve been donated.
Samantha, The same pols also are big on burning corn in our cars. For our culture, we consume too many corn products. But for starving nations, it’s obscene.
The company could have trucked the non-leaking jars to Washington State. We have a Good Samaritan Food Donation Act that protects from liability this type of issue.
The Act, RCW 69.80.031, can be read HERE.
~+~
Also with the big mudslide disaster in Oso, Costco was a big donor of food relief.
Dredd, How non PC of you to make fun of people w/ lisps. Of course, your “favorite” Winston Churchill had one. Whenever I say libertarian, it is small ‘l’ and we libertarians believe more choice, more freedom. I would be pleased w/ a dozen or so choices.
No argument there, Anne. If this nation was sensible about helping the poor, it would provide tax incentives to donate food to the hungry. Instead, politicians fund a food stamp program that enriches corporations, artificially inflates demand for food, driving up the cost for all taxpayers who, by the way, pay for the food stamp program in the first place. I predict that we will be sending food stamps to Africa in the not too distant future so the starving will have the choice to begin eating expensive junk food, rather than preparing meals from staples from scratch. And millions of gullible people will sign on in the name of helping starving people in Africa, too witless to see through the smoke in mirrors.
P-nut butter gate.
It isn’t just that the peanut butter could be contaminated, annie. The leaking oil could contaminate other products even non-food items. Someone with peanut allergies could get sick or worse.
Samantha, I’d rather see poor people get the welfare than a corporation anyday.
If anyone has done any canning and their jars haven’t sealed properly, you know your product isn’t safe to eat. If the jars were leaking peanut oil it would indicate the seal was broken or the jar was cracked. There IS a real potential that the peanut butter could be contaminated. I know peanut butter has a long shelf life, even opened, but I can see the hesitation in giving the peanut butter to people for consumption. I do understand the frustration though when the products are being dumped instead of donated just because they may be a few days past their expiration date.
Sure, go ahead and deny corporate welfare exists. In the way Ukraine has been looted, so is corporate America looting our nation. With so many in denial, this trend will continue until the US is so weak, even Mexico could invade and annex. There is always a loose wingnut ready to dismiss reality, clinging to the bankrupting ideology that makes his paycheck possible. Everyone in the water wants to be in the lifeboat, but those in the lifeboat won’t let them in. Before food stamps, no one threw away food.
nick spinelli
…
We libertarians understand this quite well and pray the duopolists in the country finally wake up.
===============
Wee libertarians are triopolists wanting to be singularities.
Three Wongs don’t make a Wight bro.
Samantha: “Poor people have food stamps so there is no skin off of their butts but rather off the butts of the taxpayers instead.”
Perhaps one day you’ll have the benefit of testing the veracity of your claim.
Costco is a good company that takes care of their employees.
Whenever you see regulations and laws restricting an industry that seems callous or stupid it means lobbyists representing competing interests greased the palms of politicians. We libertarians understand this quite well and pray the duopolists in the country finally wake up.
Costco is not refusing to donate the peanut butter out of some warped pleasure from screwing over poor people. Donating would give them a tax break, would be cheaper than dump fees, and would grant them some small amount of good will.
Sadly, attorneys make that impossible. Even if no one got sick, there would be a large number of lawsuits making all sorts of claims.
Mr Turley, I can understand why you may find it perplexing why Costco can’t give their product away and benefit all parties. However you may want to look at some of your less scrupulous associates.
Even though the peanut butter could be classified as distressed merchandise, its retail value of 3 million dollars would be no more than $300,000 wholesale. By sending the peanut butter to the landfill, rather than feeding the poor, Costco is protecting the hunger demand so that it may sell new peanut butter for 3 million dollars. Poor people have food stamps so there is no skin off of their butts but rather off the butts of the taxpayers instead. It is a variation on corporate welfare disguised as a business decision. Do I have to explain what is behind military surplus?
This happens all the time with grocery stores across the nation. Good food is just thrown away because the lawyers warn of liability issues. They even lock the dumpsters so nobody can rescue the good food thrown into the garbage can. Health departments shutdown individuals from preparing food for the homeless because they lack proper permits based upon inspections, or they lack the proper insurance to cover liability issues. Someone once said, the love of money is the root of all evil, and that certainly is the case in this situation. If money were not involved, the moral choice would be crystal clear to everyone.
I am sure liability concerns played a part in their decision. I have never thought it was right to expect the poor to eat things that you would not sell. It’s one thing if you are talking about out of style clothes; it’s another if you are talking about tainted (or even possibly tainted) food. Costco is usually a socially responsible company (no I am not associated with them), but they do run a business. They might be able to get a waiver from food banks, but certainly not from the individuals who would consume the food. And even if they did get waivers, think of the bad publicity they would get from headlines such as “Thousands of homeless people taken ill after consuming peanut butter donated by Costco.” And homeless people are much less likely to get proper treatment if they do get sick. They may also be more likely to have compromised immune systems. That, coupled with not receiving proper medical care, makes the risk of eating tainted food much more dangerous.
And, yes, they probably were influenced by lawyers, but after all, that is the job of their lawyers.