為捐贈食物免責立法

美加捐食物免責 港府：無意立法

【明報專訊】本港未有法例保障食物捐贈者的法律風險。根據智經研究中心前年的研究，美國、加拿大及意大利等地已有法例免除捐贈者不必要的法律責任；其中美國於1996年通過《Bill Emerson好撒瑪利亞人食品捐贈法案》，免除捐贈者及接受食物的非牟利組織，因為食物性質、出產時間、包裝及狀態而引起的民事和刑事責任。

在意大利，免費分派食物的認可非牟利組織，會被視為食物的最終使用者，因而可免除由食物安全和衛生規則所衍生的法律責任，而受助者亦無法對食物捐贈者興訟。

2015年，立法會議員單仲偕曾提出訂立食物捐贈者免責條款，但當時署理環境局長陸恭蕙回應稱政府無意引入「好撒瑪利亞人法」。

(5/2/2017)

以政府儲備計算, 香港是個十分富裕的城市, 但實際上富的人富死, 窮的人窮死, 很多物資的浪費其實可以避免的, 尤其是在食物方面, 每天扔棄的數量可以養活多少人呢, 我沒有這方面的數據。香港在捐贈食物方面對捐贈者保障的法律極之落後, 儘管政府大力宣傳惜食, 在根本的法律思維方面卻停滯於「不作為」的層面, 罔顧社會貧窮階層可以從別人浪費中得益。明報一則《4000盒「過期」薯條棄街 市民速掃清》的報導, 使人感慨, 值得安慰的是, 市民把這些餅食撿走, 減少了浪費。如果香港政府肯立法, 保障食物捐贈者的民事責任, 很多到期(use by)食物, 或者過了最佳食用日期(best before)的食物也不用扔到垃圾站去。一般餅食罐頭, 過了最佳食用日期一年半載, 吃了也不見得有甚麼問題, 政府在這方面多走一步, 訂立保障捐出食物者的法律責任, 有甚麼困難呢? 實際上我沒有印象見過受惠者對捐出食物的人提出法律訴訟, 香港人在減少食物浪費方面實在羞恥地落後。

訂立捐贈食物免責的法例一點也不複雜, 我舉兩例, 第一例是明報所提及的1996年美國訂立Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act有關條款:

........

‘‘(c) LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES FROM DONATED FOOD AND GROCERY PRODUCTS.—

 ‘‘(1) LIABILITY OF PERSON OR GLEANER.—A person or gleaner shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or condition of apparently wholesome food or an apparently fit grocery product that the person or gleaner donates in good faith to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals. 

‘‘(2) LIABILITY OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.—A nonprofit organization shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or condition of apparently wholesome food or an apparently fit grocery product that the nonprofit organization received as a donation in good faith from a person or gleaner for ultimate distribution to needy individuals. 

‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.—Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to an injury to or death of an ultimate user or recipient of the food or grocery product that results from an act or omission of the person, gleaner, or nonprofit organization, as applicable, constituting gross negligence or intentional misconduct.’’;

......

在我居住的悉尼, 新南威爾斯州也有類似的法例:

......

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 58C

Protection of food donors

58C Protection of food donors

(1) A person who donates food (the 
"food donor" ) does not incur any civil liability in respect of any death or personal injury that results from the consumption of the food if:

(a) the food donor donated the food:

(i) in good faith for a charitable or benevolent purpose, and

(ii) with the intention that the consumer of the food would not have to pay for the food, and

(b) the food was safe to consume at the time it left the possession or control of the food donor, and

(c) where the food was of a nature that required it to be handled in a particular way to ensure that it remained safe to consume after it left the possession or control of the food donor-the food donor informed the person to whom the food donor gave the food of those handling requirements, and

(d) where the food would only have remained safe to consume for a particular period of time after it left the possession or control of the food donor-the food donor informed the person to whom the food donor gave the food of that time limit.

(2) For the purposes of this section, food is safe to consume if it is not unsafe food.

...... 

訂立這種Good Samaritan法例可謂毫無複雜性可言, 免責程度之大萬一出了岔子有所死傷, 追究捐贈人一點也不容易, 為甚麼眼白白看着超市或食肆為了省卻麻煩和成本而把食物銷毀呢?

2015年法國政府全球首創立法限制超市不能扔棄或刻意毀掉售不出的食物, 強制超市與慈善團體簽署捐贈食物的合約, 以此阻止浪費食物。意大利政府也緊隨其後在2016年訂立類似法例。這種立法相對於捐贈食物免責的法例複雜, 法國的法例是規定面積400平方米或以上的超市受規管。我只期待香港立法邁出第一步, 也不奢望特首候選人有任何承諾, 始終環保組織不是票倉, 候選人的政綱對此一句也不會提。香港那種朱門酒肉臭, 路有凍死骨現象需要大力提倡環保惜食才會改變。上館子不要過量點菜, 吃剩一定要帶走, 有幾多人會有這種意識? 貧窮當然惜食, 富裕而惜食是一種道德教育。數年前有次返香港吃自助餐, 舉目皆是杯盤狼藉的殺戮戰場, 見到鄰桌吃剩的食物那種浪費, 使我對自助餐越來越抗拒。一般心態是吃得少蝕底, 吃得多傷腸胃, 多吃了其實也是浪費。所以我很少去吃自助餐, 去吃也基本上吃自己慣常的食量。

指望香港社會修補撕裂, 互相體諒關懷, 是一種相當遙不可及的幻想。幫人也分分鐘挨罵。生活富足的人根本不會理解窮人的困苦。打個岔, 去年意大利最高法院聽審一宗店鋪盜竊案的上訴時, 作出很出格的裁決。一個原籍烏克蘭的流浪漢在超市偷了價值4歐羅的芝士及香腸, 被判監6個月及罰款100歐羅, 最後上訴至最高法院, 法官判他無罪, 所持以理由(2015年BBC的報導):

"In times of economic hardship, the court of cassation's judgement "reminds everyone that in a civilised country not even the worst of men should starve".

......

Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote.

"The condition of the defendant and the circumstances in which the seizure of merchandise took place prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of necessity," wrote the court."

不去憐貧惜苦, 自滿於個人成就, 照顧弱勢社群就被批評為社會主義, 很多標榜香港人拼搏精神是核心價值之一的人, 肯不肯為這社會盡一點力, 無償地幫助別人, 展示大愛的心呢?