I once worked with a food pantry leader who liked to prowl their pantry taking photos of the full shopping carts of clients. They used these photos to advocate for limiting how much food their visitors were allowed to take, adamant that no one really needed that much.
Why did they believe people were taking too much food?
Our client’s shopping carts were full.
The assumption about the needs of our visitors had nothing to do with the reality of their situation- whether they had a big family or only shopped once every three months or had a specific nutritional requirement. It was entirely based on the discomfort of seeing an individual living with hunger experience an abundance of food unconditionally.
While I wish this was a unique scenario, in my decade of food justice advocacy I’ve found that people are much more likely to have concerns about giving food pantry clients too much food than too little. Inevitably, someone voices fears that, left unrestricted, clients take more than they need, make inappropriate selections or don’t make the most efficient or cost-effective choices.
Food pantries intend to prevent hunger by distributing free food. Why is there such a strong conviction that we have to control and limit these resources to end hunger?
As a student of American history, a quote from the author Horatio Alger (known for his rags-to-riches novels) comes to mind.
“The difference between the rich merchant and the ragged fellow who solicits his charity as he is stepping into his carriage, consists, frequently, not in natural ability, but in the fact that the one has used his ability as a stepping-stone to success, and the other has suffered his to become stagnant, through indolence, or dissipation.”
Horatio Alger’s 19th century stories about young men escaping poverty through sheer grit and determination are foundational to our nation’s conviction that hard work inevitably fosters success.
The ability to “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is a primary tenet of the American dream and weighs heavily on efforts to end hunger. We’re taught to believe that the failure to be food secure is a personal one, typified by someone too weak-willed, corrupt, or lazy to put in the effort.
If you fundamentally believe that food pantry clients experience hunger because of a personal failing, it’s logical to endorse the idea that they need guidance from more successful individuals to direct them down a better path.
This justifies controlling how much food shoppers take and basing these limits on our comfort level rather than the reality of the need.
What do people mean when they are concerned about food pantry clients taking “too much food?” Often, I hear that “too much” means any more than the bare minimum for survival. It means having a couple cans left over by the time of the next pantry visit. It’s a whole family eating a heaping, unrestricted serving at meals. It means having leftovers. Referencing the Horatio Alger myth, it is enjoying abundance without earning it through the perseverance we think escaping poverty demands.
Food pantries may occasionally implement limits because of a constrained food supply. However, it’s important to examine the instinct to restrict food based on our comfort level and the judgements we make about poverty when implementing programs to eradicate it.
The fear of someone experiencing hunger taking “too much food” ultimately hobbles how effectively we combat the problem. Food justice organizations need to actively encourage abundance and provide the needed resources without imposing assumptions about hunger upon those living the reality.
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!
Reintroducing justice and dignity to the fight to end hunger 
One thought on “Why You Oppose Giving People Too Much Free Food”