1

Entry No 8

Should Hong Kong Introduce a Good Samaritan Food Donation Law? If

So, Why and How? Introduction This essay proposes that Hong Kong should introduce a Good Samaritan food donation law. The essay will be divided into four parts. First, it will provide a background overview of the Good Samaritan food donation law. In particular, we will look at the application of the law in the United States, Canada, England and Australia. Second, the essay explains why the food donation law should be introduced in Hong Kong. It can tackle the imminent problems of food waste and food insecurity in the city. Third, the essay will examine the current legal position in Hong Kong with regards to food donation. We suggest that fear of legal liabilities is the main obstacle to food donation and such fear arises from the uncertainty in Hong Kong’s legal framework. Fourth, we will discuss how the Good Samaritan food donation law should be implemented in Hong Kong. The main objective of the law is to balance the interests of both food donors and recipients. On one hand, the law should encourage more food donation. On the other hand, it should not overprotect the food donors from all legal liabilities. 1. Overview of the Good Samaritan food donation law “Good Samaritan law” is a name that attributes to the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the Bible.1 Nowadays people integrate the biblical reference into a legal doctrine and call it the “Good Samaritan law”. It may be defined broadly as, “any person who intervenes voluntarily to assist a person, who he or she reasonably believes to be ill, injured or at risk of illness, injury or death.” 2 By applying this doctrine specifically to food donation, the general position of the Good Samaritan food donation law is to protect good faith food donors from legal liability for injuries, such as food poison, caused by the donated food. 1.1 The emergence of the Good Samaritan food donation law in the United States In order to understand whether the Good Samaritan food donation law is applicable in Hong Kong, we should first examine the emergence of the law in the United States as reference. 1 Bible, Luke 10:25-37. 2 UK Law Reform Commission, Consultation Paper 47-2007 at para.3.02.

2

In 1996, the Congress of United States passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (“the Bill Emerson Act”) to encourage food donation.3 There were two main reasons behind such intention. First was to resolve the problem of food waste. When the Bill Emerson Act was enacted, the U.S. government estimated that “each year about 27% of America’s food gets thrown out, with more than 300 pounds of food per person ending up in the waste system.”4 Hence, the total amount of food wasted was around 96 billion pounds.5 Due to the large volume of food waste, the landfills in the United States were being filled at an increasing rate.6 In 1996, 210 million tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) was generated, of which food waste contributed to more than 21.4 million tonnes. That was more than 10 per cent of MSW.7 The Bill Emerson Act was enacted with a goal to reduce the total food waste and hence the pressure on landfills. The second reason for enacting the Bill Emerson Act was to resolve the problem of food insecurity. According to an official report in 1995, 11.9% of American households were food insecure. That was equivalent to 11.9 million households.8 If the American citizens could dispose 96 million pounds of food to the landfills, there must be surplus of food that could adequately feed the needy. Therefore, another goal of the Bill Emerson Act was to facilitate the redistribution of food within the system. Shortly after the Bill Emerson Act took effect, the amount of food donation increased significantly in the United States. America’s Second Harvest reported that its total donations in 1997 reached 860 million pounds of food. In the subsequent year, the total donations increased to 947 million pounds of food.9 In addition, the law attracted more corporate donors to expand their donations. For instance, 7-Eleven increased its donation from 1.5 million pounds to 4 3 Van Zuiden, Stacey. The Good Food Fight For Good Samaritans: The History of Alleviating Liability and Equalizing Tax Incentives For Food Donors, p.243. 4 U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Pub. No. EPA 530-R-99-040. Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery 7 (1999). 5 Haley, James. The Legal Guide to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, August 2013. 6 Sustainable Management of Food, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-management-food-basics 7 Franklin Association Ltd, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, rep. No. EPA 530-R-98-007, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States (1998). 8 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Household Food Security in the United States in 1995, p.47. 9 Balu, Rekha. Food Industry’s Efficiency Poses Dilemma for Charity, Wall Street Journal December 18, 1998.

3

million pounds after the Bill Emerson Act was passed. That was more than 150% increase in donation.10 The Bill Emerson Act was a critical marketing tool in promoting food donation because it provided comfort to individual and corporate food donors and saved them the effort from researching multiple legislations and case law. In addition, the potential food donors could no longer use the fear of legal liability as an excuse not to make donation.11 Table1: Barriers that prevent U.S. corporate food donations Type of barrier Retail and Wholesale Transportation constraints 42% Liability concerns 67% Insufficient storage & refrigeration at food banks

50%

Regulatory constraints 17% Source: Food Waste Reduction Alliance12 According to a survey done by Food Waste Reduction Alliance shown in Table 1, it identifies that liability concern is the greatest barrier to food donation. This is because, in the United States, strict liability is imposed on food retailers in relation to foodborne illness claims, so the corporates work diligently to manage their risk exposure to lawsuits. Therefore, the Bill Emerson Act was introduced to encourage food donation by removing such barrier. 1.2 The Good Samaritan food donation law in other common law jurisdictions 1.2.1 Canada Aside from Quebec and Nova Scotia, almost all provinces in Canada have enacted a Good Samaritan food donation law.13 In terms of political reality at the time of legislation, Canada and the United States shared the same intention to promote food donations. Most provinces legislated the law in the 1990s during which Canada underwent a period of high and increasing unemployment and poverty.14 According to the National Population Health Survey 1998/99, 10 Burros, Marian. Eating Well, New York Times December 11, 1996. 11 Morenoff, David. Lost Food and Liability: The Good Samaritan Food Donation Law Story, Food and Drug Law Journal, vol. 57. 12 The Conference Board of Canada. Study of Organic Waste Reduction: Tax Incentive Options for Charitable Food Donations Making the Business Case, May 2015. 13 Food Banks Canada, available at: https://www.foodbankscanada.ca/Hunger-in-Canada/Links-and-resources.aspx 14 Hawkes, Corinna and Jacqui Webster. Too much and too little? Debates on surplus food redistribution, 2000, p.16.

4

over 10% of Canadians, or an estimated 3 million people, were living in food insecure households.15 Therefore, the food bank associations urged the provincial governments in Canada to resolve the social problem at that time.16 In terms of legal background, the key difference between Canada and the United States is that the former country does not impose strict liability on defective food products. In addition, Canadian legal system is less litigious than the United States.17 Hence, some commentators argued that the Good Samaritan food donation law in Canada had little impact in encouraging donations because the donors faced a much lower barrier than their counterparts in the United States.18 However, to rebut those objections, this essay would like to highlight that the food donation law also serves another function. That is, to preserve the existing supply of donations. Such pre-emptive measure was emphasized in Canada’s legislative documents. They pointed out that although there had been no lawsuits in Canada associated with foodborne illness arose from donated food, “it would only take one to dry up a considerable supply from corporate sponsors and donors.”19 Therefore, even though strict liability does not apply to food products in Canada, it is still beneficial to have a Good Samaritan food donation law legislated. This essay suggests that such pre-emptive measure should also be taken into consideration in Hong Kong’s legislation. 1.2.2 Australia Food donation law is also in place in all states in Australia. However, unlike the United States and Canada, the legislation in Australia was not a reaction to resolve an urgent social problem, such as food waste and food insecurity. At least such urgency was not specifically addressed in the available legislation documents.20 To understand the purpose of legislation in Australia, we should look at its legal background in the 2000s. The Australian governments undertook major reforms in the area of tort, in particular, the law of negligence in 2002. The spirit of the

15 Statistics Canada. Health Reports, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.13. 16 Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Official Records for 23 June 1994. Donation of Food Act, 1994. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=fr&Date=1994-06-23#P9_175 17 Hawkes, 2000, p.16. 18 Ibid. 19 Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Official Records for 23 June 1994. Donation of Food Act, 1994. 20 Tony Kelly, Minister for Local Government, Legislative Council Hansard, 6 May 2005; Graham West, Parliamentary Secretary, Legislative Assembly Hansard, 8 December 2004; NSW Legislation Review Committee. Legislation Review Digest, No 1 of 2005.

5

reform was to strike an appropriate balance between protection of the injured parties and personal responsibility of the defendant. The food donation law was a continuation of the reform. It serves to balance the food safety considerations and the benefits of food donation. 21 However, some people opposed the food donation law because it tipped the balance in favour of the donors. They were worried that after commencement of the law, the food recipients would be denied of their rights to compensation. 22 In other words, they had to bear all the risks of negligent behaviour committed by food donors or food banks. The Legislation Committee rejected that line of arguments above for two reasons.23 First, the Committee recognized that there was a countervailing public interest to encourage people to donate food to the needy. Second, the immunity afforded by the food donation law was not absolute. The law required that the donated food was safe for consumption even if it is unsuitable for sale.24 Therefore, the law is drafted in a way that provides sufficient protection to the donors without putting the health of the recipients at risk. In Part Four of this essay, we will discuss the implementation of the Good Samaritan food donation law in Hong Kong. When we draft the law, we should follow the example in Australia and try to balance the interests of different stakeholders. 1.2.3 England England did not enact the Good Samaritan food donation law, although a bill was proposed in 2012. Again, the purpose of the bill was to reduce the amount of food waste being disposed to the landfills and to tackle food insecurity. 25 In 2014, the House of Lords rejected the introduction of Good Samaritan food donation law. The Lords EU Committee was “unconvinced of the need for a Good Samaritan Act due to potential for perverse consequences.”26 It concerned that public debate of the legislation would scare potential donors away. In addition, the Committee commented that none of the food retailers and 21 NSW Legislation Review Committee. Legislation Review Digest, No 1 of 2005. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 First reading of the Bill: House of Commons 14 March, 2012, available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120314/debtext/120314-0001.htm#12031472000002 26 European Union Committee. Counting the Cost of Food Waste: EU Food Waste Prevention, 10th Report of Session 2013-14.

6

manufacturers mentioned that legal liability was an impediment to food donation.27 Besides, only 6 per cent of food waste was produced at the supply chain level, while vast majority came from households.28 Therefore, the Committee concluded that a food donation law was not necessary in the England. However, the arguments given by the Lords EU Committee in England are not applicable to the situation in Hong Kong. Unlike England, the food industry in Hong Kong generates a significant percentage of food waste. The industry generated more than 1056 tonnes of food waste per day, representing about 30 per cent of the city’s overall food waste.29 Such proportion is five times more than that in England.30 In addition, legal liability is the biggest concern to the corporate donors in Hong Kong.31 Therefore, by encouraging food donation at the supply chain level, the food donation law can substantially reduce the amount of food waste. 2. The Good Samaritan food donation law should be introduced to encourage food donation in Hong Kong In Part Two of this essay, we will adopt a comparative approach. We will argue that the social situation in Hong Kong is similar to that in the United States and Canada in the 1990s. Hence, the statistics of these two countries will serve as a benchmark for comparison. We will come to a conclusion that Hong Kong is currently suffering serious food waste and food insecurity problems. Therefore, there is a necessity to encourage food donation in Hong Kong and the food donation law should be enacted. 2.1 Food waste problem Hong Kong faces imminent social problems with regards to waste management. According to the Environment Protection Department, all three landfills in Tuen Mun, Tseung Kawn O, and Ta Kwu Ling will be exhausted by around 2020. 32 In the light of the urgency to alleviate the pressure on the landfills, the Environment Bureau set up the Food Wise Campaign on 3 December 2012 to 27 Swinburne, Zander. Peers reject ‘Good Samaritan’ food donation plan for Britain, The Independent, 6 April 2014. 28 Vickery, Katherine. New Food Waste Bill pressing for duty to donate surplus food, 2012. 29 Oxfam. Survey on surplus food handling and donation at food companies: Executive summary and policy recommendation, February 2014. 30 Supra footnote 27. 31 See Table 2 below. 32 Environmental Protection Department. The Hong Kong Waste Problem: Play Catching-up amidst Controversies, available at: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/chinese/panels/ea/duty_v/eavp1304-4-ec.pdf

7

promote food waste reduction.33 One main objective of the Campaign is to avoid 5% to 10% of food waste through donation by 2018. 34 The types of waste can be roughly grouped into three categories: municipal solid waste (MSW),35 construction waste, and sewage sludge. Currently, among these three types of waste, MSW constitutes to 67% of the total amount of waste.36 In particular, food waste is the major constituent of the MSW in Hong Kong.37 Each day, more than 3,300 tonnes of food waste were disposed of at the landfills and they accounted for at least 36% of MSW.38 Such composition of food waste in MSW is three times more than that in the United States in 1996.39 In other words, we can infer that the current level of food waste problem in Hong Kong is even worse than that in the United States before the Bill Emerson Act was enacted. Therefore, in order to meet the target set by the Food Wise Campaign above, the Good Samaritan food donation law should be introduced. 2.2 Food insecurity problem A growing number of people live in poverty in Hong Kong. The government has defined the poverty line on the basis of “relative poverty” and set it at 50% of the median monthly household income before policy intervention, such as taxation and social welfare transfer.40 According to the latest Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report in 2015, there were a total of 1.34 million of people living in poverty, which was the highest number since 2009. The poor represented 19.7% of the total population.41 The problem of food insecurity in Hong Kong is quite severe. According to a survey done by Oxfam, 45.9% of all poor households were food insecure.42 In other words, approximately 9% of the total population in Hong Kong are food insecure.43 The current degree of food insecurity in Hong Kong is comparable

33 Food Wise Hong Kong, available at: http://www.foodwisehk.gov.hk/en/about-us.php#background 34 Environment Bureau. A Food Waste & Yard Waste Plan for Hong Kong 2014-2022, February 2014. 35 Municipal solid waste comprises solid waste from households, commercial and industrial sources. It excludes construction waste, chemical waste and other special waste. 36 See Types of Solid Waste Disposed of at Landfills in 2015 in http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/data/stat_treat.html 37http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/waste_maincontent.html 38 Environmental Protection Department. Food waste challenge, available at: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions/food_waste_challenge.html# 39 Supra footnote 7. 40 Census and Statistics Department. Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2015, p.1. 41 Ibid, p.62. 42 Oxfam. Survey on the impact of Soaring Food Prices on Poor Families in Hong Kong Executive Summary. 43 19.7% x 45.9% = 9%

8

to the level in both Canada and the United States before their legislation of the Good Samaritan food donation law.44 Besides, among those 45.9% of low-income households, one-sixth of them were living in the state of “high food insecurity”.45 Therefore, food donation should be encouraged in Hong Kong. By redistributing the surplus food to the needy, food donation can tackle both problems of food waste and food insecurity at the same time. 2.3 Food donation behaviour among Hong Kong food companies Most food companies in Hong Kong are reluctant to donate food. 90.4% of them are not willing to donate their surplus products to food bank.46 The following table illustrates the reasons given and the corresponding percentage:47 Table 2: Reasons that prevent Hong Kong corporate food donations Reasons Percentage (%) Worries about legal liability 67.0 Insufficient resources and manpower 22.2 A lack of knowledge about how food donation works 18.6 Difficulties in bearing extra transport costs 15.1 A lack of support from the government 12.0 Criticisms of the donated food by non-profit and social service organisations

4.0

Others (e.g. decision made by headquarters, too little surplus food)

16.6

The survey indicates that the fear of legal liabilities is the primary barrier to food donation just like the United States. In addition, 40.7% of the food companies agree that food exemption clauses for food donors will be effective in encouraging food donation.48 Therefore, the Good Samaritan food donation law should be enacted in Hong Kong to lessen the worries of the food companies. 3. Current legal position in Hong Kong In Part Three, we will examine the current legal position in Hong Kong with regards to food donation. We will look into three aspects: statute, common law and common practice in Hong Kong. We will show that the food companies’

44 Supra footnotes 8 and 15. 45 “high food insecurity” refers to the status of repeatedly experiencing hunger in the last 12 months. 46Oxfam. Survey on surplus food handling and donation at food companies: full report, p.61. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid, p.62.

9

fear of legal liabilities is not without grounds. The fear arises from the uncertainties in our current legal framework. 3.1 Statutory position Donated food is not subject to control under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) 49 or Sale of Good Ordinance (Cap. 26) because it is not for sale or not a transfer of property in goods for money consideration. In other words, even if the donated food is contaminated, the donors or food banks cannot be sued under these ordinances. Nevertheless, the government’s Centre of Food Safety issued a set of safety guidelines for food recovery in August 2013. It lays down the food safety principles that should be applied to food donated to charity, regardless of the types and sources of food.50 These principles include the general procedures for food collection, inspection, storage, and preparation.51 However, the guidelines do not impose statutory obligations on the donors to follow. 3.2 Common law position Since there are no reported cases in relation to claims specifically against defective donated food products, the following discussion is largely derived from general principles. On the basis of these principles, the essay suggests that food donors may still be subject to tortuous liabilities. In this section, we will review food donors’ duty of care and standard of care. 3.2.1 Duty of care Generally, there are four types of food donors: manufacturers, wholesalers, individuals and food banks. The first three types of donors can either donate the excess food to recipients directly or donate it through the food banks which act as intermediaries. Although these donors might be involved in different stages of the donation process, they still owe a duty of care to the recipients. It is well established in the landmark case Donoghue v Stevenson52 that a manufacturer owed a duty of care if he (1) sold the product to the ultimate consumer; (2) with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination; and

49 Replies to initial written questions raised by Finance Committee Members in examining the Estimates of Expenditure 2015-2016 (Reply reference number: ENB 143). 50 Ibid. 51 Centre for Food Safety. Food Safety Guidelines for Food Recovery. 52 [1932] AC 562.

10

(3) with the knowledge that the product may result in personal injury in the absence of reasonable care during the preparation. The scope of liability extends to product retailers,53 intermediate distributors or re-suppliers.54 Therefore, wholesalers, individual donors and food banks, which fall within one of these categories, also owe a duty of care to the food recipients. The potential claimants need not be the purchaser of the food product. According to Lord Atkin’s “neighbor principle” in Donoghue, a duty of care will be owed to all “persons who are so closely and directly affected by” the defendant’s act that the defendant “ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected.”55 Therefore, donees who are the end-user of the product can make a claim against all types of food donors mentioned above. 3.2.2 Standard of care Once it is established that the food donors owe a duty of care to the recipients, it must then be shown that the donors fail to meet the appropriate standard of care. In the traditional view, a donor was liable for a lower standard of care than someone who ran a business in the same industry. The donors were only required to warn the donees of the defects which they had actual knowledge.56 However, the donor must not actively create situations of danger, such as manufacturing a defective product and giving it away as a commercial sample.57 The modern view has deviated from the traditional one. The court tends to disregard the gratuitous nature.58 Therefore, the basic standard of care for food donors is that they should exercise such care as would be exercised by the reasonable person in similar circumstances. However, what is the reasonable standard for food donors? Due to the absence of case law, the position remains unclear. Most food companies set their own business standard in monitoring the quality of their food products. For example, they may throw away products that are edible but not marketable because of the unappealing appearance or packaging. Another example is that some food has a “best before” date labeled on it. The food companies might dispose those

53 Fisher v Harrods [1966] 1 Lloyd’s rep 500. 54 Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] 1 QB 229. 55 [1932] AC 562 at 580. 56 Coughlin v Gillison [1899] 1 QB 145; Oliver v Saddler [1929] AC 584 at 596. 57 Hawkins v Coulsdon UDC [1954] 1 QB 319 at 333. 58 Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 at 526-527, per Lord Devlin.

11

products two days before the expiry date because they are unlikely to be sold to the consumers. Since it is uncertain whether the legal standard of care required from the food companies is different from the business standard, the food companies would rather dispose the products than donate them in order to avoid any potential litigation. Therefore, the food donation law should be introduced to address the uncertainties in our current legal framework.59 3.3 Common practice Under the current food donation practice, food donors usually enter into an agreement with recipients to overcome potential legal liabilities.60 For instance, the agreement might contain a warranty disclaimer indicating that, “the recipient has confirmed that the food is edible when he or she receives the food. If the recipient suffers any personal injury after consuming the donated food, the donors would not bear any liability.”61 However, these agreements that purport to limit negligence liability may not be enforceable. According section 7(1) of the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 71), no one can “exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence” by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to the victim. In addition, by agreeing to these agreements, the victim is not “taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk.”62 Therefore, the common practice exercised by the food donation community might not provide the immunity anticipated by the donors. 4. Implementation of the Good Samaritan food donation law in Hong Kong In Part Four, we will discuss how the Good Samaritan food donation law should be implemented in Hong Kong. This essay suggests that the law should achieve three goals. First is to reduce donors’ fear of legal liabilities. Second is to clarify the standard of care imposed on the food donors. Third is to balance the interests of both donors and recipients. In particular, the law should not overprotect the donors. In this discussion, we will draw reference from the relevant legislations in the United States, Canada and Australia. Although each jurisdiction might use different wordings in their legislations, they largely include the following elements: 59 See section 4.3 below. 60 Replies to initial written questions raised by Finance Committee Members in examining the Estimates of Expenditure 2015-2016 (Reply reference number: ENB 143). 61 See「食物回收捐助聯盟」派發薯仔粒, available at: https://foodrecyclinghk.wordpress.com/page/3/ 62 Section 7(3) of the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 71).

12

4.1 General position: food donors do not incur any civil liability The general position is that food donors are not liable for civil liability or damages resulting from injuries or death caused by the consumption of the donated food. This provision is a response towards the donors’ fear of legal liabilities. It tries to encourage food donation by removing the donors’ primary barriers. Nevertheless, this essay suggests that Hong Kong should not entirely follow the Bill Emerson Act63 and go so far as to protect the donors from criminal liability. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. It means that the prosecution has a higher burden to prove the defendant guilty of a particular offence. Therefore, the donors are sufficiently shielded from criminal liabilities by the current legal system. The food donation law should not generously grant another layer of immunity to the food donors. 4.2 Exceptions: food donors must not commit gross negligence The protection granted by the food donation law is not an absolute one. It is subject to some exceptions. The donors are not protected if the injury or death of the recipient results from the donors’ “gross negligence”, 64 “intentional misconduct”,65 or “reckless disregard for the safety of others”.66 Although different jurisdictions use different terms, essentially they all refer to the situation where the donors must not consciously or voluntarily act in a way that is harmful to the health or well-being of another person. Therefore, the recipient’s right to compensation is reasonably protected. 4.3 Clarify the standard of care The food donation law should clarify that the legal standard of care required from the food donors is not as stringent as their business standard. The standard of care is met if the products are “apparently fit” or “apparently safe” for consumption when they are donated. In other words, the donors only need to ensure that the products are not adulterated or rotten while they are still in the possession or control of the donors. Therefore, the standard of care should be sufficient enough to facilitate food donation and sufficient enough to minimize the chance of causing injuries to the recipients. 63 Part C section 2 of the Bill Emerson Act provides that the food donors are not subject to criminal liability. 64 Part C section 2 of the Bill Emerson Act. 65 Ibid. 66 Section 1(1) of Donation of Food Act, 1994 (Ontario).

13

Conclusion The legislation of the Good Samaritan food donation law is a policy driven decision. From the experience in the United States and Canada illustrated in Part One, we can see that the law was a reaction towards the social problems of food waste and food insecurity. Hence, when we determine whether we should enact the food donation law, we have to examine the current social background in Hong Kong. Part Two of the essay shows that the food waste and food insecurity problems in Hong Kong are even more severe than the level in the United States and Canada in their 1990s. Therefore, it is the right timing for the food donation law to be introduced in Hong Kong. Part Three demonstrates that the current legal landscape with regards to food donation remains ambiguous due to the lack of reported cases and relevant statutes. Part Four proposes how the Good Samaritan food donation law can be implemented and how it can cure the uncertainties in our existing legal framework. The law should be able to strike a balance between the social utility of food donation and the liability borne by the donors. #454795