I thought it was best by on milk, too. I've drank it a few days after that date before and it was fine. Definitely wouldn't risk a full week after, though. Lol. 

I dunno about the logistics of donating waste food to the needy and all that, but there are some cool new ventures on the way to help reduce food waste in other ways:

https://www.cnet.com/news/karma-waste-food-dining-app-london-launch/

Just checked the milk in my fridge and it’s only says a date and nothing else. Opening to interpretation lol. Try at your own risk. 

Throw that sucker out a day early then. No point in risking that. Lol. 

Yes but when paying for food becomes a situation where some people literally has to starve to death cause they can't pay for it, then the system itself is wrong. And that's exactly the issue, the system, in other words: capitalism.

Just cause we don't see children starving cause it happens far away or even in our own country but we still don't see it does not make it less of a crime. A society that lets its children starve to preserve a system that in the end is only good for a minority of people (cause even the middle class is having a harder time than they used to), then such a system is fundamentally wrong.

I'm not sure I'd automatically point a finger at capitalism for starvation in a given place. Sometimes other factors have a greater impact on food supplies like natural disasters or war. Additionally, no economic system will change the fact that seeds need planting, crops need harvesting, and food needs transportation to get to where it's needed most.

I don't know, maybe a system where food is produced locally instead of it being transported half way across the world would help toward a smaller environmental impact AND a cheaper price at retail. But transporting food half way across the world is part of globalization and globalization is one of the pillars of capitalism.

As for wars and natural disasters, they cause the problems in some examples of starvation but the actual starvation is caused by the fact that the people caught in wars and natural disasters can't afford what they need to recover from said disasters and that issue of not being able to recover is directly caused by their poverty AKA lack of money AKA capitalism.

I don't understand. If producing locally results in a cheaper price, wouldn't firms just move towards producing locally, even under capitalism?

Key word here is 'maybe'.

But what if farmland has been wiped out by a hurricane or flood? How's money supposed fix that? I can go to my local supermarket with pockets full of cash but if the supermarket has empty shelves, what good are my pockets full of bills?

Perhaps a lack of money is a symptom rather than a cause of a problem?

Good question, we should ask those big corporations why they choose to produce halfway across the world rather than locally.

But if I may venture a guess, it's probably cause by producing halfway across the world they get tax incentives and other dirty tricks that allow them to maximize profit at the expense of everything else: quality, the environment, paying decent wages to their workers over there, consumers etc. Again Capitalism in all its splendor.