The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 83040
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Pro will contend for the resolution and Con against.

For more information on the subject see links [1] and [2].



Approximately 1 in 9 people around the world don't have enough food in a day to lead a healthy lifestyle. Imagine if this was your life. You wake up in the morning, get up off the dirt in which you slept last night, and say a silent prayer that today won't be like yesterday, and that you will get at least one single meal. As stated in Nickelback's song, 'When we stand together': "We could feed a starving world with what we throw away". That is a very true statement, but it doesn't need to be. France is doing what it can to change that to "We feed the world with our unsold food". That is why I think... I know... That France made the right decision. I don't see why throwing food away is better than giving it to those in need.
Debate Round No. 1


"Approximately 1 in 9 people around the world don't have enough food in a day to lead a healthy lifestyle. " Pro

While this statement may be true, providing evidence would make this claim stronger.

The rest of Pro's statement is emotional but lacks evidence. Con contends that the wasted food will not make it to the hungry. Most of the people who die from starvation are in the third world. "The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished." [3]. France is a long ways away from the poorest countries. [4].

The problem with giving food to 3rd world countries is cash crops. Pro learned in school that if too much food is given to developing countries farmers instead grow cash crops. Now the country receiving free food is more depend than ever. Next, local warlord seize the food given by 1st world countries. These warlords then force the locals to vote for them. Therefore, the first world giving food to 3rd world countries is worse than useless because it creates more problems than it solves.

"Somalia's economy, one of the poorest in the world, is an agricultural one based primarily on livestock and, to a lesser extent, on farming. Livestock accounts for about 40% of GDP and a large percentage of export earnings, mainly from Saudi Arabia; bananas are the main cash crop and account for nearly 50% of export earnings. [5].

" Cultivation of Tobacco

In 1985 4.1 million hectares of land were under tobacco cultivation - 73% of this in developing countries. This is 0.3% of the world's arable land, compared with 0.7% for coffee, 2.3% for cotton and 16.3% for wheat. Malaysia has the most at 4.6%, Zimbabwe next at 3%. " [6].

As anyone can see cash crops make more money than food crops. This is why donating food to the third world fails. Even without the local warlords, donating lots of food drives down the cost of food by saturating the market with supply. This is basic economics, as supply rises while demand holds still, price goes down. Farmers can no longer afford to plant food crops and instead plant cash crops.

Onto hunger in the 1st world. The same basic principle applies. By forcing supermarkets to donate their food to charity there is more supply. More supply drives down prices. Supermarkets become less profitable. Less profitability means less supermarkets. Finally forcing supermarkets to donate to charity limits their freedom.

France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was not justified. This will only harm both the 1st and 3rd world. Vote Con.



Con poses a good argument. But that shouldn't be enough to win. If you are deciding which side you should vote for, think about this. Sure it could potentially cause splash crops, I understand that, but is that really enough to make you decide that France's supermarkets should simply throw away unsold food, and not even try? And we don't even need to look that far away, we can look as close as the food bank. Many people donate to the food bank and that isn't throwing anything off balance. It is simply feeding those who struggle and would starve without it. Think about this: If you lived in a third world country with little to nothing to eat in a day, and people started supplying you with much needed food, would you stop working? Would you honestly sell that much needed food? No. You wouldn't. Even if Frnce couldn't/wouldn't give to third world countries, that would supply local food banks with plenty of food. I don't see how this can be bad in the very slightest, but I wish you the best of luck:)

Debate Round No. 2


"Think about this: If you lived in a third world country with little to nothing to eat in a day, and people started supplying you with much needed food, would you stop working? " Con

If you ever gardened, you will realize just how hard it is to grow crops with no tools. Much of the soil your hands aren't strong enough to break. Clay soil for example. Tools are needed. Yet, tools have limited durability, and there is a cost to fix and replace broken tools. Not only that but there is the initial startup costs of buying tools.

If supply goes up price comes down. If supply goes up too much, the price will fall so far that the price of repairing and replacing old tools will be greater than the price of selling the food to the market. The farmer will lose money in this scenario. Not out of laziness but out of need the farmer will begin planting cash crops which will be exported to 1st world countries. Cash crops like tobacco.

This website illustrates how a sudden increase in supply with stagnant demand drives down prices. "Another reason was to try and slow down the wave of foreclosures that were entering the market and driving down prices." [7]

Just as in the housing market a bunch of foreclosures can destroy the economy, by dramatically increasing supply, the same is true of the food market. If you watch King Corn you will see why limiting supply of food is good. [8]

Just as in third world countries flooding the market with food can be disastrous, there is no reason this couldn't happen in first world countries. Instead, supply needs to be limited so that food prices remain high and therefore profitable.

Supermarkets in France have found a clever way to limit supply. By spoiling food early as opposed to donating the food supermarkets keep food prices high and farmers in jobs. Worst case scenario is food banks become so saturated that the price of food is driven down and farmers go out of business. With farmers out of business France may face food shortages in the long run.

In summary, on the surface its a good idea to force supermarkets to give to charity. Yet, delving deeper this bulge in supply could ruin the food market. Less farmers, means less food, and the very event France was trying to prevent may be caused, food shortages. Con contends that this excess supply of food will ruin the food market of France and cause more hunger than it prevents in the long term.

Causing hunger is not justified. Therefore, France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was not justified because it will cause more hunger in the long run by ruining the food market by driving down prices with excess supply. Vote Con.



Everyone notice that Pro is only refer to what could go wrong in third world countries. He poses a good argument, but I don't think it should be nearly enough to simply watch them starve. And, there isn't only poverty far away from us in third world countries where cash crops could occur, but also all around us in our own community. There is no way that could happen in our modern day community. Food goes old, and is unsold so they simply throw it away. Instead, supermarkets could give that unsold food to the food bank, rather than letting it, and our community, rot. Please open your eyes and realize the selfish community we live in today. Vote Con! Don't sit back and let our very own starve on the streets at night! Whose with me?!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.