"Containering"

[Clawg]

I was stunned when I saw this.

http://www.spiegel.de/videoplayer/0,6298,18318,00.html

It is a short german documentary (5 minutes) about "Containering" (I don't know if there is even an english word for that).

The two students are presented as G8-protesters / Leftists who spend most of their times planning their protest and don't have the time or the will to work (probably the latter). Instead they search through the trash cans of super markets to gather their food. According to the video they don't spend any money at all on food and do it for 'political reasons'.

I agree that the food shouldn't be simply thrown away, apparently there is value in this type of food for a low price.

So what would be the rational choice for the people who do "containering"? Form a small company, talk to the super market owners and buy the trash.

But no, instead they just steal the food. They argue that it's trash anyways and that they don't harm anyone.

I wonder what would have happened if they had bought the food in the super market one day earlier.

One problem they face is that usually there is a large quantity of only certain types of food but none of other types of food.

And guess what they do next (it isn't mentioned in the video but it is stated on another website about "containering")? They gather with other people who also do "containering" and exchange those types of food which they have too much for types of food they have too little.

How would you call this? Free Trade!

Oh my...

Unfortunately the super markets seem to ignore that problem. In addition, according to some articles I've read, the police seems to ignore 'trash-thieves', too.

[DavidV]

I'm sure there are tons and tons of regulations that require businesses to either throw away edible food, or add a lot of red tape and legal liability to handing it down.

Even food banks throw away tons and tons of good food due to health regulations: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/...cle_1631862.php

[Clawg]

I'm sure there are tons and tons of regulations that require businesses to either throw away edible food, or add a lot of red tape and legal liability to handing it down.

Well, I can only speak about the situation in Germany. Yes, there are regulations about products like meat, they must not be sold after a certain date. For all other goods there is no restriction. There is a 'best before' label on each type of food but you can still sell it after that date. It simply marks the date until the product still has its specific qualities (like 'taste').

Some super markets do offer lower prices for products that are beyond the 'best before' date but I suppose that the costs to individually evaluate a price for each item are simply too high (seperate pricing + you don't want your customers to buy bad products even when they knew that the product *could* be bad) and the demand too low.

There are of course government programs to subsidy (buy and destroy) the production of food to 'allow local farmers to compete' but that's a different issue.

Even food banks throw away tons and tons of good food due to health regulations: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/...cle_1631862.php

Maybe I've misunderstood it but I don't see that this follows from the article you have linked. It is stated nowhere that they have changed their policy due to regulation of any kind.

[Inspector]

It is a short german documentary (5 minutes) about "Containering" (I don't know if there is even an english word for that).

Unfortunately, there is an English word for it: Freeganism.

[Scott_Connery]

Thats what they like to be called. I just call them dumpster divers.

[JMeganSnow]

I vaguely remember the food co-op they had when my mother was in college: you could go and work for maybe 30 minutes to an hour doing various chores and take home a bag full of "free" groceries. People were too lazy even for that and they complained viciously that, yes, you got stuff that was past the sell-by date and the boxes were squashed in and stuff. But they got $30 worth of groceries for an amount of work that would have earned them $3 or less.

You never see things like that around any more. People just get food stamps.

[Old Toad]

I agree that the food shouldn't be simply thrown away, ...

Why shouldn't a person or business be able to manage and dispose of its own property as it sees fit? Perhaps the news article was equivocating on the words "food" and "trash."

A common definition of "food" is "any substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give energy and build tissue."

A common definition of "trash" is "worthless material that is to be disposed of."

Obviously, at some point a ripe banana becomes a rotten banana. I happen to prefer mine on the firm side of ripe. Why should I have to go to the trouble, in a hurry, of finding someone who happens to like mushy bananas to sell him my slightly mushy banana instead of me deeming it to have become "trash" and treating it as such?

But no, instead they just steal the food. They argue that it's trash anyways and that they don't harm anyone. ...

...

Unfortunately the super markets seem to ignore that problem. In addition, according to some articles I've read, the police seems to ignore 'trash-thieves', too.

What "problem"? Is this an example of the fallacy of the stolen concept? Can there be "theft" of intentionally abandoned property, i.e., trash? Why would the police trash their valuable time protecting trash?

[D'kian]

Eating out of the trash carries major risk for food poisoning and other diseases. Think of it as evolution in action (with apologies to Larry Niven).

[Clawg]

Why shouldn't a person or business be able to manage and dispose of its own property as it sees fit?

No, they should be allowed to do anything with their property as they wish.

I just think that the food still has some value which could be turned into profit in some cases. But as I have stated above, selling cheap / bad stuff might cause you to loose your usual customers.

Obviously, at some point a ripe banana becomes a rotten banana. I happen to prefer mine on the firm side of ripe. Why should I have to go to the trouble, in a hurry, of finding someone who happens to like mushy bananas to sell him my slightly mushy banana instead of me deeming it to have become "trash" and treating it as such?

You should consider to examine whether there can be made any profit.

What "problem"? Is this an example of the fallacy of the stolen concept? Can there be "theft" of intentionally abandoned property, i.e., trash?

At least in this case the containers were standing behind closed bars on private property. And just because you put something in a trash container with the intent to let it be destroyed at a later date does not mean you loose your property rights.

Why would the police trash their valuable time protecting trash?

Because it is the job of the police to protect private property. Just because it isn't much worth for others does not mean that you don't have a claim for police protection.

If the super market would put in on a table in the supermarket they would loose money because people buy less, so there has to be a way for the supermarket to destroy the food without anyone taking it away.

On a positive sidenote, there is an gorganisation called "Tafeln" which collects voluntary donations by super markets and other companies and donates them.

They are (surprise surprise) criticized because they propagate small government where social benefits are organized privately and not by the state. The usual anti-logic the critics use is that in such a state those who depend on this charity have no say in the company that runs "Tafeln".

[Old Toad]

At least in this case the containers were standing behind closed bars on private property. And just because you put something in a trash container with the intent to let it be destroyed at a later date does not mean you loose your property rights.

Hmmm. I don't remember seeing in the video clip any trespassing (but I can't understand much German). In many cases “containering” or “dumpster diving” probably does not involve trespassing.

Determining intent regarding trash bins usually depends on understanding the context.

For example, I would object to someone diving in my trash bins when behind my property fence. When moved outside my property fence to the side of the road on trash-pickup-day, I would not object to someone reaching in and taking my squishy banana.

Most of the time, the context makes it reasonably clear that a person or business has abandoned property interest in its trash.

In some parts of the U.S., I think there are some laws regarding when the contents of a trash bin become claimable by anyone. For example, in some parts it may have to be mixed with other trash from other bins.

In general, if I want something to be destroyed, such as customer data on an old hard-disk drive or papers with valuable banking information, I destroy it before putting into the trash bins on the side of the road.

Because it is the job of the police to protect private property. Just because it isn't much worth for others does not mean that you don't have a claim for police protection.

Hmmm. A policeman’s time has some value. There must come a point where the value being protected is not worth the cost of police protection or there could be more cost-effective options. Perhaps the grocery store could easily destroy any remaining “food” value before putting it in the bins?

This seems to be more a matter of disgust (which I agree with) than a serious issue of property rights violations.

Ironically, I have more problems with others filling my business’s trash bins with their trash – so that they don’t have to pay to have it hauled off. Now that’s serious trash trespassing!

Edited May 25, 2007 by Old Toad

[eudaemonist]

If something is "trash", by definition, its former owner doesn't want it anymore. Where's the immorality in valuing something that isn't valued by others? For example, many stores in Manhattan don't sell bananas once they're ripe enough to develop brown spots, and make a huge batch of fresh bagels every single morning. If people want to pull bags of perfectly decent ripe bananas and one-day-old bagels out of the trash instead of watching them go to the landfill, it hurts no one.

However, if the supermarket owners feel like dumpster divers are a threat to their bottom line, they should take responsibility for disposing of their surplus food securely. If you break a lock, you're definitely doing something wrong. Failing that, there is no culpability for putting "waste goods" to use. Saying the state is obligated to use policemen to protect that which its citizens are disposing of is absurd.

Do salvaged appliances and furniture bother you too? For example, is an E-bay seller who provides the service of connecting buyers with goods headed for the landfill doing anything wrong? Personally, I think that's just part of capitalism. You might as well claim it's immoral to shop at thrift stores or garage sales.

Edited July 19, 2007 by eudaemonist

[eudaemonist]

Eating out of the trash carries major risk for food poisoning and other diseases. Think of it as evolution in action (with apologies to Larry Niven).

True. But on the other hand, perhaps dumpster divers are developing a more robust immune system. Survival of the least-squeamish!

Edited July 19, 2007 by eudaemonist

[softwareNerd]

Do salvaged appliances and furniture bother you too?

I think you're missing the point. Nobody is condemning people for dumpster-diving, as such. It is the ideology that's being condemned. If someone can get value out of someone else's trash, that's great. However, that's not what these Freegans are about. These aren't some people who are doing this because it makes economic sense. They're doing it from an anti-production mentality, and to "save the planet" and so on.

One might condemn a typical dumpster-diving bum for other reasons: for instance one might question what brought him to that state and so on. However, that's not the issue in this case. These are a different breed. So, if one looks at them and thinks they're regular bums trying to get a meal, one would not make such a harsh judgment of them. The negative judgment really flows from the reasons behind what they're doing, from their anti-man philosophy.

[DavidOdden]

Where's the immorality in valuing something that isn't valued by others?

The immorality would come from violating another person's rights, taking without permission. There are various reasons why one would wish to prohibit dumpster-diving from your grocery store trash bin. There are liability concerns -- you can say that you dumpster diving should constitute an automatic waiver, but that does not mean the concerns aren't there. Diving has fraud potential, if you can produce unwholesome-looking just-opened goods, you can often get free replacements (they don't actually ask for receipts, in my experience). There can be contractual obligations with name-brand products pertaining to the good name of the product (you can imagine the headlines -- "Homeless man eats Stouffer's Pot Pie, Gets Sick, Dies"). And any action that sanctions the anti-capitalist freaks whose purpose in live is destroying anything that makes a profit is, for a grocery store, suicidal.

The fact that the trash is in someone else's garbage bin, on someone else's property, and there is no "Feel free to graze" sign up, is sufficient indication of intent. Many stores do now post No Trespassing signs. Locking the trash is impractical, since the dumpster has to be in an accessible location so that the garbage truck can grab it and up-end it to empty it. Stores should not be forced to hire security guards to keep people out of the trash.

[Old Toad]

The negative judgment really flows from the reasons behind what they're doing, from their anti-man philosophy.

I think this is a good point, even if dumpster-diving per se is not illegal or trespassing.

[eudaemonist]

The immorality would come from violating another person's rights, taking without permission.

If trash is property, it should be protected like property. The fact that it isn't tells me all I need to know. Stores don't leave their salable goods unguarded in plain sight on the curb at night and expect them to go unmolested; to expect discarded waste to remain inviolate boggles the mind. In New York, many people lock their dumpsters for many of the reasons you (and I, for that matter) outlined above and that's completely fine and dandy with me. But to expect the state to step in over what's essentially a private matter because a few hippies and bums feel like they're sticking it to the man is a waste of public money.

Edited July 19, 2007 by eudaemonist

[Old Toad]

The ethical issues of this trash topic strangely interest me. It is because of the contrast between the article and the problems I have had with our business trash dumpsters. My perspective is the problem of unwanted contributions being made to our trash dumpsters. These dumpsters cost money for the budgeted amount of trash space and disposal service we need each week. The adding of other people's trash is an inconvenience of mess when they overflow. We actually have larger trash dumpsters than we need to accommodate other people's regular trash contributions -- which costs additional money. We should not have to do clean up the overflow messes they make or have larger dumpsters, but we have no locks or screens for them. These additions are a nuisance, and they are tresspassing.

Some of the parade of horribles in David Odden's post above would happen just as well if a person obtained the trash from a local dump. At what point should one's property interest be considered abandoned and such risks assumed by the dumpster diver?

... Stores should not be forced to hire security guards to keep people out of the trash.

In the last sentence, I question the degree and measurement. Stores should not be forced to lock their front doors at night either, but most businesses do take reasonable and proportionate precautions against "casual" trespassing and theft of valuables. A typical grocery store cannot afford to put its goods in a bank vault at night, but the value of the goods is usually sufficient to warrant at least using a lock on the front glass door and an alarm system to dissuade casual trespassing and theft.

In proportion, how much effort should a grocery store spend on protecting the contents of its trash dumpsters if it does not want dumpster diving? A "No Trespassing" sign would help to express intent, and I agree that it should be respected. I have also seen some dumpsters behind locked gates or screens that are only opened on trash days. That helps screen the unsightly area and dissuade dumpster diving, too.

Again, I put my house trash on the street, outside my gate on trash days, even though it may still be on the edge of my property. At that point, I have abandoned it, and passers-by are welcome to it. Some items I fully expect will be picked up by people passing by for their use or salvage value that is not worth my trouble to try to sell. I hope it is reasonably clear that they would be eating my trash food or using such abandoned items at their own risk. (I would certainly not think it was right to intentionally poison trash food that otherwise might appear edible or booby-trap an item of trash as a means of dissuading dumpster diving.)

I also consider our business trash abandoned when placed in the dumpster at the edge of our property in an alley in an unlocked, unscreened dumpster. The "Private Property" sign on the dumpster is primarily intended to warn the unlicensed dumpster contributors, not the divers. The dumpster contributors are furtive, know they are trespassing, and do it at night. (Of course, we also prefer not to see dumpster divers doing their unsightly "work" during business hours, either -- but we have only very rarely seen that.)

I would certainly consider anyone's property interest in trash fully abandoned when it is carried off and reaches the local dump. Perhaps the dump owner might assert a property interest in it, but not the person who had it carted off.

[DavidOdden]

If trash is property, it should be protected like property. The fact that it isn't tells me all I need to know.

How about lawn furniture, which is typically not locked down?

But to expect the state to step in over what's essentially a private matter because a few hippies and bums feel like they're sticking it to the man is a waste of public money.

Would you then say that it's a waste of public money to get the cops involved in an essentially private matter like trespassing or breaking and entering? Or in general, to prosecute people who violate the rights of others? Or perhaps I misunderstand -- are you saying that when something is in the dumpster, it is no longer your property, which would also mean that you have no responsibility for it (i.e. cleaning it up or disposing of it)?

[DavidOdden]

These dumpsters cost money for the budgeted amount of trash space and disposal service we need each week.

Have you estimated what it would cost to keep the dumpsters locked? Including wasted employee time while someone searches for the key so that somebody can throw away some boxes, and also what it would cost to unlock them whever the trash company would do their pickup (presumably not at a regular and predictable hour). I'm just curious.

At what point should one's property interest be considered abandoned and such risks assumed by the dumpster diver?

I suppose one answer is, when the stuff is tossed into a bin labeled "free for the taking".

Stores should not be forced to lock their front doors at night either, but most businesses do take reasonable and proportionate precautions against "casual" trespassing and theft of valuables.

They do indeed, but that doesn't make it right. So of course if there is potential harm to the business, they will do what they need to in order to protect their interest, but they should not have to. If the question is whether trespassing is moral or taking another person's property without permission is moral, the answer is clearly, no, it is not. And that was the question, btw. I have seen stores forced into the position of needing to erect fenced structures around their trash to keep the rights-violators out, so it's inevitable that to survive, people will have to do something to protect their interests against rights violators -- but it's not right that they be forced to do so.

[Old Toad]

Hi David,

Have you estimated what it would cost to keep the dumpsters locked?

Not in particular. But having had a couple of fences built for my home in the past, I think we would have to build at least a 10’ X 10’ square fence preferably 8 or 10' high, including setting 4 corner posts and 3 additional middle posts for three sides, at least 30’ running feet of a tall wooden screen, plus at a double-door hinged for the opening and closing the front side. I am not any kind of contractor, but I guesstimate the material and labor cost would probably be around $1,000, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was much more.

I edit to add: The hassle of operating the enclosure would probably be minimal. The key could be placed by the rear exit of the building from where the trash is routinely taken to the dumpster. I guess the hassle would add a couple of minutes of custodial service time each day, but probably not have any impact on the real cost of running the business. If added to the flat rate we pay for the service, I would estimate about 25 cents of labor value each day, if tracked, perhaps $5/month? Even if that was added to the custodial service bill, that amount, if it were the only cost, would probably be worth it and perhaps even offset for allowing the business to pay for a smaller dumpster.

I suppose one answer is, when the stuff is tossed into a bin labeled "free for the taking".

There are many situations in society where rights and boundaries are understood from the context, not necessarily from posted signs. For example, people are free to walk on the 10' edge of my property beside the road that is outside my fencing. I assume the same from my neighbors -- even if I have never directly communicated with some of them. There are no signs, but I know it is private property I am walking on. I do not consider myself in such circumstances to be a trespasser just because my neighbor has not posted a sign that says: "Please feel free to walk on my property outside my fence line." The same regarding the location the trash bins in our neighborhood. How do I know these things? I can’t point to anything specific except that it is generally understood.

(But if one goes inside the fence line without being specifically invited, especially at night out in the semi-rural area where I live, he might get hurt -- very badly.)

Edited July 19, 2007 by Old Toad

[Qwertz]

I wonder to what extent waste collection is still under government control. I know that in my mother's municipality, the city owns its own garbage trucks and collects garbage itself. I do not know if it goes to a public landfill or a private one, but I do know that the nearest landfill is owned by the county.

In situations where a business leases dumpsters from an apparently private waste management company, I wonder to what extent their choice in waste collection service has already been pruned by the city government. In many cities, household waste collection is contracted out by the city to a private waste management company. I do not know if they go so far as to prohibit other companies from collecting garbage, but either way, those other companies are at an extreme disadvantage, as operating in a highly dominated market where the consumers are paying for waste collection through their taxes is, to put it mildly, economically unfeasible. Compare municipal cable television franchise agreements.

My point is, the more influence government has over waste collection, the less likely it is that private property rights will be enforced. For example, police do not need a warrant to search your trash when it is "on the curb" or otherwise in a designated collection area adjacent to public property. Even if you own the trash bins and the trash bins are sitting on your property. So long as they are adjacent to a street. Public property. Edit: I left out my major point, which is that government's decision to view garbage so situated as less deserving of some types of private property protection (4th Amendment) may suggest a willingness to disregard other types of private property protection (criminal , and perhaps even civil, trespass).

I shall have to add this to my hypothesis that a government's ownership of roads is alone sufficient to bring all private property under its thralldom. See also fixed crossing licensing.

-Q

Edited July 19, 2007 by Qwertz

[eudaemonist]

How about lawn furniture, which is typically not locked down?

Been to Brooklyn lately?

"Would you then say that it's a waste of public money to get the cops involved in an essentially private matter like trespassing or breaking and entering?" Or in general, to prosecute people who violate the rights of others? Or perhaps I misunderstand -- are you saying that when something is in the dumpster, it is no longer your property, which would also mean that you have no responsibility for it (i.e. cleaning it up or disposing of it)?

I'm saying if you throw something away, by definition, it has no value to you. If it has value--of whatever kind--treat it that way and take reasonable measures to assume responsibility for it instead of whining to the state to take care of it for you. Doing what you can to protect your own economic interests ought to be a no-brainer for any business owner.

More and more companies large companies like WalMart and Eckerds are doing just that by using compactors.

Edited July 20, 2007 by eudaemonist