I volunteer at a food bank, and the company that sends us our food decides what we get. Last Tuesday they sent so much produce we could not fit it all into fridges. We were trying to give away cases of the food on Wednesday, but people were turning it down because they had no place to store a case of tomatoes, or cauliflower. This was what we had left after last Wednesday's morning give away. Not pictured the 5000lbs of watermelons, the 2500lbs of onions (those will last a lot longer).
The company that supplies us wants to move from sending shipments every other week, to once a month. This would cause even more no produce loss.
It is so frustrating to have all this food for it to go bad. Even if we got the same volume of produce, but there was variation in what it is we could give it away easier.
Edit: I posted this in a comment.
Because of bureaucracy we have to request this. If it is found out we are giving away the food to unapproved recipients we can lose all of our funding. If we give to unapproved recipients and they in turn give us prepared food to give out, that is okay.
Word got out that we were loading up my pickup with food and taking it to the homeless camps. I did get a number of them to start coming to the bank to get food. But it was easier when I could take stuff to them.
We are not allowed to simply give it out to anyone. This is not like a church pantry where all of the food is donated by the community and's parishioners. There is government funding, as well as private businesses, which I am guessing get their money back from the government for funding this. If we could simply give it to anyone we would not be in this situation.
Making the expected production a higher number than the expected need will give the headroom necessary to deal with a shortage without people starving.
If you're aiming to produce food for a population of 100,000, but have the capacity to make food for 200,000, then you can afford to waste half of your food without starvation. You can also accommodate a 50% drop in production without starvation.
So that buffer is expected waste, but it's also starvation resistance.
That potential waste of food can be transported to another group of people
If you're accommodating another group of people you should produce enough to always feed them, too, not just sometimes in surplus years. The whole point is that you've gotta plan for a surplus, otherwise you risk starvation in bad years (and it doesn't make it any better, morally, if the people who bear the risk of starving are "another group or people").
I think the point is that if you do that, then you're just increasing the amount of people in the equation, and if they become dependent on you and the production drops, somebody will be lacking food again.
Don't feed because they might be in need?
Overproduce to cover everybody's needs, and if you want to use that overproduction to cover somebody else's problems, make that the new target and produce over it to keep a safety margin. Otherwise you're just going to hide the problem and run into trouble when production dips.
Not saying this is the right approach, but this is the idea I'm getting from the thread. I feel like it might not work with the economics of supply and demand combined with capitalistic greed, but if a margin exists as safety, allocating it removes that safety.
So different expectations at different periods, telling people there will be extra food and mentioning a rough duration solves it. No promises afterwards, enjoy while it lasts.