July 2023 – Reintroducing justice and dignity to the fight to end hunger

The Power of Our Words to Fight Hunger

“Just think positive!”

Who hasn’t had someone tell them that thinking a certain way will influence the outcome of a situation? Although it is rarely welcome advice and easier said than done, there is validity to the idea that how we think about problems influences our understanding and capacity to solve them.

There is nowhere this is more true than in the effort to end hunger. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that successfully ending hunger must start with changing how we think about and discuss it.

There is so much baggage and emotion tied up with our society’s existing understanding of hunger that building a new framework will be easier and more effective than trying to rework the old one.

Changing the language we use is a small step that should be followed by more tangible action, but is an incredibly powerful way to bring more food justice to the world around you.

Here are three examples of how word choice impacts hunger:

Food Stamps vs. SNAP Benefits

From 1939-2008, people using government food assistance relied on Food Stamps. Highly visible pieces of paper made it hard to use discreetly, and cultural biases and assumptions led to stigma against the people utilizing this essential resource. Because of this, Food Stamps were deliberately renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in 2008. Although SNAP is a term slow to be adopted by the general public, the change was a intentional effort to reduce the stigma of food assistance. Given that embarrassment for needing help is one of the primary barriers to utilization, this is a small but important effort towards making food assistance feel more accessible to everyone.

Food Bank vs. Food Pantry

When I worked at a large urban food bank, people regularly came to us for food. These visitors were given a small box of nonperishable foods, and a resource list of local food pantries that would be able to provide them with more help. The formal distinction between a food pantry and food bank isn’t widely known, which often left these individuals feeling embarrassed and or even angry when told we didn’t offer the assistance they were looking for.

Food banks are food hubs that collect and store food, which is then distributed to partner agencies such as food pantries or soup kitchens. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, people looking for free groceries are looking for a food pantry. Before the pandemic, few food banks distributed food directly to people experiencing hunger (although since 2020 the number who manage some type of distribution has grown significantly).

Data clearly shows that people seeking food assistance are more likely to use the search term “food bank” rather than “food pantry” as they research options. Although I am generally an obedient rule-follower, food pantries adopting the title of food bank would help ensure that people in need find them more easily and avoid awkward encounters at food banks.

It may be time to think of a new term for food banks that more adequately encompasses the work they do, especially as many expand their missions to include advocacy, education, and services beyond that of a food hub.

Free School Lunch vs. Universal School Meals

Framing has a huge impact on how our ideas are perceived. Particularly in America, there’s a staunch expectation that people need to earn their success, and strong opposition to the concept that anyone should be given anything for free.

One way this idea manifests is in the current discourse around school meals. There is a growing movement to offer free meals to all students in low-income public schools and not just those who qualify. Requiring an application and examination of a family’s income stops many families from applying, which leaves their children without access to school lunch.

(I once worked reviewing these applications for CACFP, the school lunch equivalent for daycare centers, to ensure that students qualified for a free or reduced-price meal program. It was clear that language barriers, education level, and understanding of the program were major factors influencing who applied, and that the number of applications didn’t reflect the true needs of the community.)

Advocates are working to ensure that high-poverty schools offer meals to all students to eliminate the bureaucratic barriers that leave kids hungry. While much of the political pushback focuses on the costs, there certainly remains an aura of reluctance to provide anything for free.

If we choose to advocate for universal school meals rather than free lunches, it reduces the fear that anyone receives anything for free (that we think they might not deserve). It’s hard to argue that children don’t need lunch at school, so simply renaming this policy helps make it palatable to people with more diverse perspectives.

The words we choose to talk about hunger have a powerful impact on how we, and the people around us, think about the issue. Anti-hunger advocacy doesn’t have to be phone banking, or volunteering, or lobbying for policy change. Carefully considering the words we use offers an opportunity to implement subtle shifts in how our community thinks about hunger, which will help us foster buy-in when we do choose to be more active participants.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Do You Believe Everyone Deserves To Eat?

This week, I overheard a comment as a client entered our food pantry, an iced drink in hand. One of my volunteers muttered, “if they can afford Starbucks, then they probably don’t really need to be here.”

I was disappointed by the judgement and the lack of empathy and understanding that I heard in their voice. Unfortunately, this is an attitude I encounter regularly as a food justice advocate.

Many people, whether consciously or unconsciously, believe that hunger is primarily the fault of an individual making bad choices.

When someone believes that anyone can simply work themselves out of poverty, spending five dollars on a delicious frosty drink on a 90-degree Friday is merely confirmation that their poor choices led them to needing to use a food pantry. This assumption is the primary motivation for anti-hunger institutions to control what types and how much food a client may receive- because of the belief that they can’t be trusted to do it themselves.

These attitudes are heavily engrained in our society, particularly among demographics who still advocate that hard work is the primary component of financial success.

Too many anti-hunger organizations and supporters espouse providing minimal resources to avoid anyone in need from becoming “too dependent.” (We’ll dig into the absurdity of fearing people will become too dependent on food another time.)

This assumption persists even though there’s abundant data refuting it and proving that nearly all factors of poverty are beyond an individual’s control (cost of living, available jobs, or adequate hours, not to mention the many forms of discrimination. And of course, your zip code).

What is Food Justice?

Food justice is a framework that holds food as a human right and seeks to address the structural barriers that perpetuate hunger and poverty. It is closely aligned with the environmental justice movement and advocates for building access to healthy, culturally appropriate food for everyone in a way that also supports the environmental health of our world.

Alongside recognizing that poverty is a systemic rather than individual condition, a food justice perspective analyzes the impacts of the entire food system- including land ownership, labor conditions, environmental impacts, nutritional quality, and economic and physical access, and the factors that perpetuate injustice like exploitation, racism, colonialism, and discrimination.

Historically, food banking does not easily fit into a food justice framework.

Until very recently, traditional food pantries rarely examined their role in perpetuating injustice or their neglect of the root causes of hunger by treating it as purely an individual problem.

As an individual rather than systemic solution, food pantries regularly dictate what and how much food is available to people and communities who need it, and actively perpetuate harmful assumptions about hunger and poverty (like the volunteer I mentioned in my opening paragraph).

How Can Food Pantries Take an Active Role in Implementing Food Justice?

Offer client autonomy. Trust that your clients know their own needs best and give them the freedom to choose what and how much their families need.
Actively engage your volunteers, staff, and leadership by learning about food justice to help them move beyond any assumptions they may carry about people living in poverty. It’s important to remember this will never be a one-time lesson, but rather the long-term establishment of a community culture that recognizes the historic injustices that perpetuate hunger, the evolving economic realities of our world, and embracing the idea that everyone deserves to eat, unconditionally.
Partner with food justice programs who actively work to undermine our current food system in favor of more equitable and alternative options. The fact that food justice is a recently adopted idea for the food banking industry means there are ample opportunities for food pantries to offer leadership and innovation in this field. (Here are some programs doing great work in the Pacific Northwest).

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

Why Don’t We Trust Food Pantry Clients?

“Do you see how much food that woman took? That’s so much food. What do you think she’s going to do with it all?”

I recently had a volunteer quietly ask this in my ear as we watched a woman and her daughter walk out of our food pantry with a shopping cart brimming with heads of lettuce, an assortment of fresh fruit, bell peppers, bags of dry beans, potato chips, and a variety of other foods.

“I think she’s going to eat it,” is my dry reply. “Hopefully that’s enough to support her family for the week.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t a rare question. It’s practically engrained in our culture that anyone who uses welfare is viewed with skepticism.

The idea that hard work always begets success is so engrained into our national psyche that people who aren’t successful are assumed to be so because they make bad choices. And if they make bad choices, can they really be trusted to choose their own food?

Whenever I participate in discussions on the realities of hunger, I hear people invent stories vilifying food pantry shoppers based on the amount of food they take (or the car they drive, the language they speak, or their level of gratitude, but those are topics for another post). Perhaps the clients are just hoarders, but maybe they’re selling it?

Even though abuse of the emergency food system is incredibly rare, a pervasive suspicion of individuals who use welfare means that people simply trying to feed their families are regularly labeled as greedy, exploitive, or lazy.

How did we get here?

The 1970s saw the first food pantries emerge alongside the attitude that short-term catastrophic events, rather than poverty, pushed people into food insecurity. It was assumed that the impacts of a job loss, illness, or natural disaster were only temporary, so immediate food resources rather than reliability or volume were the appropriate solution. The offering of several days’ worth of food was considered adequate until individuals were able to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and regain self-sufficiency.

Economic prosperity also fostered the idea that it was always possible to work your way out of poverty. Food pantries were created to support people through these temporary crises and were never intended as a solution for chronic hunger.

The 1980-90s and the mythical “welfare queen” fostered a tightening of food assistance programs out of fear that they bred dependency rather than independence. Reagan’s emphasis on welfare abuse and Clinton’s policies tightening access to Food Stamp cemented in America’s mind the idea that welfare recipients are always suspect.

Increasingly in the past decades, more and more Americans require regular support accessing food. Particularly since the Great Recession in 2008, families are dependent on food pantries as a regular resource rather than a temporary boost. Low wages and high costs of living mean that people can rarely work themselves out of poverty and are always short of the resources they need to survive.

Hunger is increasingly a chronic experience in the U.S., and millions of people regularly find themselves in situations where they never have enough money to buy food, even when they participate in other food access programs.

Despite this barrier, there’s remains widespread fear that if food pantries provide someone with all they need, this security will push them to quit working, buy lots of drugs, and eat lobster every day.

Through this lens of suspicion, food pantries justify limiting clients to enough food for only several days at a time.

What is our goal?

We know food pantries can’t solve hunger- a systemic problem of this size requires a systemic solution of equal scale. But what food pantries can do is alleviate some of the immediate burdens of living in poverty.

Nearly all food pantry clients have some kind of income- but they must choose whether to spend it on food, rent, healthcare, or other essential needs.

Institutions committed to building food security should aspire to reduce the amount of money that their clients spend on food. Limiting the amount of food that clients can get at the pantry to a 2–3-day supply (generally considered the industry standard) ensures that shoppers still must make hard choices about where to spend their money. Their only other option is to visit multiple food pantries until they have enough food that they’re able to eat and pay the rent or purchase their medications.

While recognizing that even the most abundant, generous food pantries are only a band-aid to a much bigger problem, they are an essential resource for ensuring all our neighbors eat every day.

When we allow these services to be dominated by bias and assumption, they create a less dignified and less effective experience, and perpetuate the struggles of people living in poverty.

If the end goal is to ensure that everyone in our community has the food they need to thrive, then we need to start by ensuring that resources like food pantries offer their services with respect and understanding of the realities of food insecurity. And that begins by trusting the people who seek our help. If we believe that everyone deserves to eat, then we need to make sure we practice that ideal to the fullest.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

When Hunger Can’t Be Solved with Food

I began my career in eastern Montana strategizing on how to improve food access in several remote towns, particularly for children participating in the National School Lunch Program. This included four months living in the town of Lame Deer on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation where I gained a first-hand perspective of the challenges to food access.

Unlike many other communities in the region, Lame Deer was lucky enough to have its own grocery store. However, because the town was so far off all major highways, it was always last on the stop for deliveries.

Fresh foods had practically expired by the time they even arrived in town, and I would see produce literally rotting on the grocery store shelves.

Because of the high travel costs, this food was also more expensive. I bought milk at this store if I had to but did most of my grocery shopping in Colstrip, a town twenty miles north.

I was privileged in that I was one of the few people in town who could afford the fuel to make the trip, since buying gasoline on the reservation was astronomically expensive. As a result, many Lame Deer residents had no other option but to buy food at the grocery store, which forced them to depend on the processed and shelf-stable options which survived the trip to their local shelves.

This community was extremely food insecure. (It is important to note that my experience took place a decade ago, and I’m sure that many things have changed. I cannot speak to the current conditions in Lame Deer.) Although I was embraced by a compassionate, enthusiastic community and worked with many dedicated activists, the barriers to building food security were huge.

The Pillars of Food Security

As empathetic creatures, we tend to have a profoundly emotional reaction to the idea of hunger. While we should all ache at the idea of anyone going hungry, it is equally important that we use quantitative tools and frameworks to assess and analyze food insecurity.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is a specialized agency within the United Nations that specifically fights hunger, and in 1996 the World Food Summit and FAO produced a framework for evaluating food security. This framework identifies four determinants of food security:

Availability- The supply side of food determined by production, trade, etc.
Access- Do people have physical and economic access? Can they get to it, and can they afford it?
Utilization- Are the available foods functional? Do people know how to prepare them? Do they meet nutritional and cultural needs?
Stability- Are these dimensions consistent over time?

Using these pillars allows us to make objective assessments and develop targeted solutions for ending hunger under a variety of conditions. Using this lens to examine conditions in Lame Deer helps us better assess what solutions might be plausible.

Availability

Although communities like Lame Deer, MT lack availability, as a nation we are rich with food. The United States has enough food available to feed every member of the population and the capacity to trade for what it doesn’t produce itself. Eastern Montana may have weaker availability than other regions, but that is through neglect rather than an actual shortage of supplies.

Access

Lame Deer residents did not have physical or economic access to food. Even if they could afford the high costs for that region, driving forty miles round trip to the Colstrip grocery store was prohibitive. Access was a primary barrier for this community to be food secure.

Utilization

Lame Deer’s food supply neglected their cultural needs. The Northern Cheyenne tribe traditionally lived on wild game and foraged foods that are not available on the small plot of land allocated to them by the federal government. Residents could not get to or afford the food they needed to be healthy.

The foods available also did not meet anyone’s nutritional needs since most of it was heavily packaged, processed, and high in fats and sugars. There were few options for fresh produce.

Stability

Unfortunately, these conditions were consistent in all the wrong ways. At the time, there were few options available for changing food access for the better. The impacts of colonization and the harsh, isolated territory made it unlikely that access or utilization would improve for residents.

Hunger Solutions Aren’t Always About Food

Although this exercise certainly highlights the challenges of living in this community, it allows us to focus on the most effective solutions. Simply bringing more food to the community may not be plausible or effective. Instead, this helps us consider how:

-Building a highway bypass from the nearest big city might enable food to arrive more quickly at the grocery store.

-Subsidizing a regular shuttle between Lame Deer and the Colstrip grocery store would allow people to access better food.

-Are there policy solutions for lowering the cost of gasoline on the Reservation?

-You may be dying for me to add community garden to this list- it is a potential option, but eastern Montana is a tough environment for growing produce, and the reason the Northern Cheyenne were allocated this land by the U.S. government is because it is neither fertile nor friendly, so it’s not a practical solution to food insecurity.

The pillars of food security are an important tool for examining the barriers for hungry communities. It’s easy to get caught up in the idea that ending hunger just calls for growing, harvesting, and processing more food (which is why the focus tends to fall on improving agricultural yields), but our country’s food supply is rarely the problem. While ending hunger certainly depends on ensuring everyone eats today, effective solutions will come through eliminating barriers rather than producing more food.

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!

How to Convince Yourself There’s Enough Food For Everyone

“Do we have enough food?” is the question currently echoing throughout the emergency food assistance network. The demand for food assistance is growing rapidly, and food pantries across the nation are straining to accommodate the number of people reaching out for help every day.

One year ago, my own food pantry was learning how to serve 100 households in four hours. Just two weeks ago, we set a new record for the number of households served- 181 in that same amount of time. With SNAP cuts in March and rising inflation, hunger needs are growing like we haven’t seen since the beginning of the pandemic and show no signs of slowing.

With the dramatically increasing need and demand for our resources, it is incredibly easy to become fixated on scarcity. How do we feed all these people with our limited food supply?

I consider myself a student of anti-hunger advocacy, but lately I realize more and more how much this work depends on psychology.

Although my focus is on the logistics of supplying hungry people with the food they need, I learn every day that doing this job well depends just as much on how I think about food access and hunger.

How people living with food insecurity feel about the resources available to them impacts how they use them.

How anti-hunger advocates think about hunger and the services they provide equally influences the systems they implement and how resources are distributed.

I spend a great deal of time advocating for presenting a sense of abundance and food security for our food pantry visitors. (Read more here). But with the growing need and strained capacity of the anti-hunger system, I have also been reflecting on the importance of advocates prioritizing our own abundance mindset.

Why should we as anti-hunger advocates develop our own attitude of abundance? How does that help us serve our community better?

Most anti-hunger organizations ensure they always have a stash of food available to support the next client, or the next distribution. But an emphasis on holding food back for later also focuses efforts on maintaining the food supply instead of the needs of our shoppers.

When our brains focus on this scarcity, we shrink our capacity to think about other things, which reduces our effectiveness at the work we do. (Right now I’m reading Scarcity: The New Science of Having Less and How it Defines Our Lives by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir.)

An abundance mindset helps us broaden our vision and find opportunities for doing better.

When we assume that we’re maxed out, we shut down any possibility of innovation. By adopting the paradigm that we have the tools we need to succeed, it enables us to strategize for success. An abundance mindset allows us to experiment with new ways to do better once we’ve internalized the idea that we have the capacity.

How can hunger fighters prioritize an abundance mindset?

1. Prioritize growth and experimentation.

In many ways, food pantries have evolved little since their modern inception of the 1970s. Most food pantries offer similar systems of food distribution that change little once they are established. But these systems may not be able to support an increase of clients or fluid food supplies, so it can be easy for a food pantry to decide they simply don’t have the capacity to grow.

Instead, food pantry staff should constantly experiment with ways to change and update their systems. By ensuring that no operation is set in stone, it empowers opportunities for innovation that very well might be able to support changing community needs.

Even small changes can be incredibly worthwhile. For the past year, our food pantry has taped client tickets to the handle of our clients’ shopping cart. This past month, we experimented with taping them to the front of the cart instead, which has expedited check-out and helped eliminate traffic jams for faster client service. This tiny adjustment has had significant ramifications on our operations.

A willingness to experiment under stress is hard; it requires a certain level of comfort with risk (and requires trust and enthusiasm from volunteers). But a refusal to take those risks ensures that your organization will not evolve to meet your community’s needs.

2. Emphasize the resources you have.

My pantry often runs low on popular food items. We rarely see canned fruit anymore and are experiencing a major shortage of pasta and sauce. These empty sections on our pantry shelves stand out like a beacon, but rather than staring at those gaps, we constantly rearrange.

Canned pumpkin is not a popular food item (especially in the summertime!) but our local food bank has an abundance, and it allows us to fill up our shelves. Even though we know most of our clients aren’t interested, filling the space on the shelves draws attention away from our lack of essentials and helps everyone feel a greater abundance.

I appreciate having some food items that are not popular. Because they move slowly, our volunteers don’t need to dedicate time and effort restocking, but they do help everyone feel like our pantry has the resources to support anyone experiencing hunger.

3. Don’t hoard your food.

My perspective comes partially from the privilege of having a significant warehouse and storage capacity, but our food has little impact when it is sitting on our shelves. There is a pervasive attitude in food banking that we must always save some for the shoppers coming tomorrow (which is true), but we give out sequentially less and less food if the goal is to always have leftovers. If you give away the food you have with faith that more will arrive tomorrow, everyone will be better served.

Projecting an attitude of abundance for food pantry clients is essential for helping them feel like their needs are being met, they are respected, and they can have confidence in their food security.

Adopting an attitude of abundance for anti-hunger advocates is harder- we are constantly faced with the challenging reality of a limited food supply while being overworked and underpaid. But by focusing on the opportunities that are open to us to do better, experiment, and practice innovation, we will access new avenues for success that otherwise would remain unexplored.

Previous Post: Why You Should Run Your Food Pantry Like a Restaurant

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Want to learn more about food justice? Subscribe so you never miss a post!