3 Comments

1. 

   acilius

    /  January 9, 2010

   That’s a shame. I hope H & M keeps its promise to discontinue this practice, and that WalMart follows their example.

2. 

   Alexandra

    /  January 9, 2010

   I didn’t know that. is it easier to do that instead of donating or what?

3. 

   cymast

    /  January 9, 2010

   I agree, it’s shameful. These people have no hearts. It’s twisted and psychotic to actively destroy something instead of passively letting it help someone. They didn’t have to shred the clothes. They didn’t even have to haul them to a charity. Somebody else would’ve gladly hauled the clothes for them.

   They would rather not even get a tax write-off than let a cold, poor child have a warm sweater for free! And the people who labored in the sweatshops to make the clothes- all for nothing! IT’S PERFECTLY GOOD *NEW* CLOTHING

   REVOLTING!

   It’s like the restaurants destroying their unsold food so people won’t simply go to a soup kitchen to eat the restaurant’s food. SHAMEFUL WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE STARVING IN THE WORLD