Live data from Hacker News

EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

environment.ec.europa.eu

251–260 of 322 posts

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#251
post #24

some places already do this for food where anything thats after sell by date but still safe to eat has to be donated to a food bank. i think it should be expanded to cover more categories than food and clothes when reuse and recycling infra grows to take the demand. its not just good for the environment it also prevents producers from restricting supply to keep their profits high. the ultimate goal is make it illegal…

> that would create a new ecosystem of discount stores and giveaway centers, and save everyone a ton of money.

No. The real cost storage and selling, not the finished product. You don't magically get competent organizations to sell that popping out of the ground.

I have worked at a donation center like goodwill before. They get tons of stuff and throw away most of it. People won't buy it and they don't have time or space.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#252

> To prevent misuse, businesses relying on these exemptions must provide proof (e.g. documents or test results) and publish annual reports on what they have discarded. I wonder if anybody is keeping track of everything a mid size business needs to take care of. Each particular report probably sounds like a reasonable request, but by now they're probably well into hundreds, and they're all outside the actual scope of…

I'm not sure your complaint works in this case. You only write a report if you want the exemption. The hypothetical business you're imaging shouldn't be looking for an exemption. The law's effect on small business is conceptually not too different from eg laws against dumping toxic sludge.

You have to deal with this no matter what unless you can live with wasting storage space. You have to arrange extra sales or try and donate stuff (basically, go through all possible options that exclude it from being exempted) if you want to get rid of an item. Your estimates on sales count need to be pretty spot on to keep that low. Donations are still taxable where I live, by the way, so all that shenanigans is added too. It's not just about the report itself. You can't get rid of products not valuable enough to keep around without adapting your whole business model. Even if you are _not_ looking for an exemption, you will have to accommodate.

No one bothered to make any of the other options easier, only the previously simplest option was barred behind trying everything else. This is what over-bureaucratization looks like.

To use a different example: No one wants to switch to public transport (which is already crowded anyway)? No problem, just ban driving unless you can prove that it's orders of magnitude faster and it's not feasible to move your residence. No further preparation is done; no thought goes beyond the horizon. "Eat this rule and deal with it, you don't have to deal with the paperwork if you're willing to spend 2 hours more on commuting". That's the line of thought here. There are no plans to make it actually viable to use the train, the other options are just barred behind this veil of plausible optionality. You can do it, of course. The issue arises from doing this with literally anything you tackle.

You essentially only add rules and special cases without ever consolidating them or even considering possible impact on adjacent topics. Everything grinds to a halt by doing this and nothing ever gets simplified. It is a huge issue on a landscape that favored small businesses (that can't afford divisions dealing with this) when the way the law is written suddenly requires structures only big companies or consultancies can provide. It entombs the market structure and drowns any competition in regulatory capture. We haven't even seen what happens once the markets are dominated by oligopolies and monopolies. By that time the only way to deal with the fall out will be even more rules, as the competitive landscape will already be dead.

I'm not against the goal of this regulation, but the recent way the rules have been made favor a market structure I consider incompatible with the goals of the EU.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#253
post #76

It seems like this policy would lead to shortages in less common sizes of clothing.

The invisible hand of the market will rectify this of course. Nothing to see here.

What do you mean? This is a case of a regulation distorting the markets ability to price and distribute goods.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#255

Why would this ever happen? Is it cheaper to destroy than sell at discount?

Yes. The primary cost is distribution, storage, and sales.

A likely outcome is stores carry fewer options and you need to order what you want.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#256

"Companies may only destroy unsold clothes and shoes in limited cases, such as when items are unsafe or damaged, counterfeit or infringing intellectual property rights, or are rejected by charities or donation schemes." Nike's unsold, defective, or returned shoes are ground up to make carpet padding. They're processed by the truckload in a large grinding machine. It seems that under these rules, this would be illegal…

This seems kinda backwards, as far as I know charities and donation schemes are overwhelmed by clothing donations. Our problem isn't that we are destroying clothes that could be used somewhere else, the problems are manufacturing low quality clothing that lasts 2-3 wears, and fast fashion where people buy clothing for a specific event. If they want to achieve their goals they should be aiming for demand destruction o…

I'm no expert, but I think the charities are overwhelmed it because very few people want secondhand clothes. They have a lot coming in and not much going out.

I hope this will result in lots of _new_ clothes being sold very cheaply in discount outlets.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes it more expensive for everyone and also decentivize donating food to homeless or anyone in need.

how does NOT destroying edible food make food more expensive?

Because it costs money to store and distribute.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#258
post #221
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But in some cases the waste will be avoided by not doing a production run at all if the minimum production quantity is too high and the law prohibits destroying the unwanted product.

I just don't get how it is cheaper in total to produce more units and throw them away. If you make more units, it's cheaper per unit . But doesn't it mean that waste is always a loss?

F.ex. in the case of flyers or other smaller print products: You will not print one product for one customer at once, but many at once (e.g. from different customers), that will share a sheet. So, e.g., you print 1000 of everything, aka 1000 sheets. If a customer needs 2000 they get two spots on the sheet. If a customer wants 4000, they get 4 spots. Now, if a customer needs less than 1000, they still need one spot for the 1000. For that customer this still will be way cheaper than doing a separate small series print.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? the two are generally unrelated. Lack of food isnt the bottleneck, there is no shortage. It is usually a host of complex problems. Is throwing away water in a rainforest immoral when there are thristy people in a desert? The problem is connecting the two.

"the two are generally unrelated" This is some truly bizarre logic. The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry for free since the company is saying it has no value if they are willing to throw it away. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this basic logic.

Who packs it up? Who finds the hungry? Who reviews their financial situation? Who delivers it?

Alternatively, do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it, and decide if they feel like paying today at the register?

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? the two are generally unrelated. Lack of food isnt the bottleneck, there is no shortage. It is usually a host of complex problems. Is throwing away water in a rainforest immoral when there are thristy people in a desert? The problem is connecting the two.

"the two are generally unrelated" This is some truly bizarre logic. The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry for free since the company is saying it has no value if they are willing to throw it away. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this basic logic.

> The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry

This is incredibly disconnected from the problem. In the US most people in poverty receive food stamps and have preferences about what they like to eat. They want cosmic brownies with their breaded chicken, not your bruised banana.

Total of volume of edible material is a non-issue.

Post reply on HN