People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries that are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions. Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

Which argument will you come up with next?

You've bounced all over the place in this thread. Just let it rest...

You gave calories as a reason people don't need this fruit.

But that logic would apply to almost fruit.

So I said it would be bad to say people in need don't need fruit, while pointing out that contrast. I'm not accusing you of thinking that, I'm accusing you of using flawed logic.

> People in need don't need single/one calorie tart cherries

There's plenty of calories in a reasonable serving, and again that argument would apply to almost any fruit. It's like complaining about a single blueberry having too few calories.

> are rarely eaten on their own. Consuming tart cherries typically involves processing that is more costly in terms of ingredients and time than simply using the pre-processed versions.

They can cook with them. Lots of things are rarely eaten on their own and need to be processed, costing more ingredients and time than the pre-processed form. This includes flour!

> Tart cherries are sometimes donated and are rarely destroyed.

This is true and has nothing to do with my point.

> Which argument will you come up with next?

If you bring up a new reason to imply that donating tart cherries is unreasonable (even though it does happen!), I might disagree with that reason. Otherwise I have had one single argument and it hasn't changed: Donating tart cherries is a good idea.

I don't know why you're so fixated on whether people eat something directly. That doesn't affect what all2 was saying or what voxl was saying or what anyone else has been saying, but you keep acting like it does.