fizzle

Yeah but it's a legal liability problem.

Food isn't instantly poisonous as of the best by date, but producers will have insurance that covers them for medical costs if someone gets sick from their food.

Obviously, that insurer is not going to cover them if the stuff is sold (or distributed) after the best by date has expired.

Suppose your local grocery store starts a "best by" program and gives out the free food which is out of date. Some customer eats a free bread role which is a tiny bit stale but otherwise satisfying... and then eats a dead pigeon the find on the side of the road.

You can probably see the problem.

In my jurisdiction I think that's only partially true.

Firstly, it's also true here that the outcome needs to be "in the best interest of the child", and that's critical.

However, it's not only cases where the child's parents have had a relationship breakdown, but is applicable to cases where the child's parents are estranged from the grandparents:

Sometimes grandparents are prevented from having a relationship with their grandchildren. This can happen where the relationship with their own child has broken down (but the parents’ relationship remains intact), or where the parents have separated and one parent refuses to let them see their grandchildren. Grandparents do not have an automatic right to have a relationship with a grandchild. However, grandparents, and anyone who has an ongoing relationship with the child, or any other person who can show that they are concerned with the care, welfare or development of a child (including grandparents) can apply to the court for parenting orders.

https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/inline-files/Grandparents_family_law.PDF

So it's not a law that would regularly enable grandparents to corrupt children against the wishes of the child's parents.

Additionally, I suspect that parenting orders may be able to require supervised access, or restrict them from participating in religious ceremonies and that kind of thing.

I think that's how it breaks down here in West Aus.

ooh. Yeah ok of course. Is that a real thing ?

edit:

ok it is a real thing. I'm a parent. I'd never wondered about this because my relationship with my parents is ok. I mean they're nutty conservatives but they're smart enough not to say anything about it.

Setting aside cases of abuse and neglect. It's kind of weird to think that someone other than myself and my partner can have a say in who my child has to spend time with.

I think it would be an up-hill battle for my parents in my jurisdiction for example. I think they would need to establish that it's in the child's best interest to have a meaningful relationship with them, and they might struggle to do that.

I'm curious to know what they think parents should do next.

I'm certain it does not involve challenging your own preconceptions.

I think this is pretty much what happens. That's how food banks get food.

Yes it is a Conan argument from conservatives, but that doesn't mean that it's not true in this case.

Yes it costs money to distribute free food. Obviously no business is going to do that. That's not greed.

The business is not being paid for allocating resources to the hiring process.

What are you really saying though?

Here charities do sell a lot of this food, where it's possible and viable to do so.

You can't sell food which is out of date because there's a high likelihood it will be harmful.

Yes, there is a lot of food waste, but IMO that's the inefficiency of logistics rather than greed or trust.

Just imagine Hanson trying to represent us on the world stage. What a joke.

He has one move: incendiary populist statements and stunts.

I'm not a therapist but I've certainly visted more than my share.

"try not to think about it" is pretty much the antithesis of modern therapy.

directly attributable to systemic issues that have no end in sight

this part is true.

Broadly there are several potential solutions:

Firstly, changing the way that we think about events. If my company is insolvent would that mean I'm a bad business person or would it mean the economy is a mess. This is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - changing the behavior of our thought processes.

Secondly, accepting that things might go wrong and not being paralysed by that fear. My company might become insolvent, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it did, I'm going to take action to mitigate that problem. This is Acceptance Commitment Therapy - accepting the risk of bad things and committing to some kind of action.

Thirdly, living in the moment, observing thoughts both positive and negative coming and going. This is mindfulness.

In summary, anxiety or worry is a healthy and normal part of human existence. We're hard wired to avoid threats and we do that by foreseeing risks and planning around them. Trying not to worry is how the healthy and normal experience becomes debilitating.

I'm sure a real therapist will be along any moment to tell me all about how wrong my summary is. I'm ok with that.