I mean, if you want to impose costs (check carefully food, possibility of lawsuit) on a donation, what you get, predictably, is less donations.
It seems to be the case that you have an assymetrical view of harm: harm by not giving food is always acceptable, harm by giving food, usually unacceptable. Why would it be the case?
Yes, it should. What you get is arguably fewer donations, but the donations you get are better donations. You raise the standard. And others want to follow suit, so they up their game too.
This is already happening. UK supermarkets used to lock their bins to stop people stealing waste food because they were concerned they'd be liable for health violations. There were public protests, so they raised their games and began properly managed waste-food donation programmes.
It's asymmetrical because it's bigger than the one donation you have before you. When you look at the big picture, you have to say sometimes "this thing isn't good enough. Even though it might hurt society in the short term to refuse it, it will hurt it more in the long-term to accept it. So we refuse."
I mean, if you want to impose costs (check carefully food, possibility of lawsuit) on a donation, what you get, predictably, is less donations.
It seems to be the case that you have an assymetrical view of harm: harm by not giving food is always acceptable, harm by giving food, usually unacceptable. Why would it be the case?