In 'I must feed my kids', the Wairarapa Times-Age reported about a local woman who is forced to forage for food discarded by supermarkets in order to feed her family. In debt - and having lost her house, business and husband - she performs this so-called "dumpster diving" at night, once her children are in bed. "I can't see my kids go hungry, so it's a matter of beg, steal or borrow," she said.
While this woman may have been ferreting through bins through sheer necessity, as reported in Chef's 'dumpster dive' nets feast an Auckland man did it for PR purposes. He served 32 people a "feast" created from binned ingredients. Evidently, "the chef pulled wrapped bread baked that morning, fresh produce, chocolate and even wasted bottles of champagne from the dumpsters". This exercise in extreme recycling was devised to "highlight the amount of food binned by retailers and restaurants".
Dumpster diving is an integral part of the freegan movement which is comprised of followers intent on extricating themselves from the prevailing capitalist "economic system where the profit motive has eclipsed ethical considerations and where massively complex systems of productions ensure that all the products we buy will have detrimental impacts." In short: they want to get stuff for free.
So the reasons a person may be introduced to dumpster diving are many and diverse. It might be due to poverty or it could be a PR stunt or for political purposes. But the question remains: is it an acceptable practice? The Guardian article entitled Skipping: is there anything wrong with taking the food that supermarkets throw away?, which ponders this very subject, says, "Three men will appear in court for allegedly 'dumpster diving' ... But isn't the crime the vast amount of food being put into skips in the first place?"
These men were arrested in London and "charged under the 1824 Vagrancy Act" for allegedly "taking some tomatoes, mushrooms, cheese and cakes" from bins behind a supermarket. One reader commented: "This is Dickensian law at its worst. The authorities would rather see people starve than use up otherwise wasted resources." Another wrote: "Of course the state must prosecute ... Can't have the peasantry getting anything for free." Evidently criticism of this nature resulted in a decision by authorities to not proceed with a prosecution.