AT HOME, food bank admin supremo Kyle has a can of vegetables he keeps for posterity. The best-before date is six months before the day his daughter was born. She is ten.
The can was given in good faith to the food bank, and there have been plenty more donations approaching antique status, but Kyle's can is our record-holder
My PB is a jar of capers I found just three years out of date, but I am fiercely competitive and have now hired an expert - from the University of Cannes of course - as a personal trainer to improve my performance. 11-year-old mandarin segments are just waiting for me out there ...
As a general rule if you find one dodgy can in a donated bag or box , you will peer at the rest with a sceptical eye. It's likely to be a cupboard clearance: a kind-hearted soul has got all the cans in the kitchen and brought them in, without thinking that he or she has been saying: "I don't really fancy those hotdogs sausages" for years, not months. Just after I found my veteran capers another volunteer found a four-year-old can of corned beef in the same bag. Damn them...
The veg in Kyle's trophy can is probably fine: I have enjoyed beer eight years out of date, and didn't I read something about canned food from Scott's Antarctic expedition being still edible?
The rule is that if something is just out of date it can be offered to clients as an extra but we can't issue it in a parcel, just as shops can't sell it and restaurants can't serve it.
So donors can do food banks a favour by just checking the use-by dates.
I hear tell of a donor at a collection centre arguing forcefully his out-of-date cans are "just fine" for foodbank users. Well they may be but why doesn't he want them? Just because the users are down on their luck doesn't mean they should get food too old to be sold, too old for the rest of the population to want: would that help restore their dignity?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article