Author: Anina Estrem

This week at my food pantry, as I walked by the long line of clients eagerly waiting to come inside to shop for groceries, I heard one woman on her cell phone say, “I’m already three months behind on my rent. I need all the help I can get.”

Unfortunately, this is not a unique story. Particularly as the holiday season approaches and people struggle with the impacts of inflation, more and more families will make hard choices about what they can afford and what they can do without, and far too often food is the easiest to cut.

At about this time every year, food banks and pantries across the country also begin strategizing and planning for the influx of need that accompanies the holiday season and the dark, colder months.

Emergency food access programs are bracing for a crush of clients as the need continues to rise.

We increasingly encounter clients forced to choose between buying food or heating their home, or paying rent, or purchasing new jackets for their children, or staying up-to-date on their medication.

Luckily, the holiday season also tends to bring a huge interest in donating food. Food banks and pantries will soon start to see a significant increase in both direct donations from individuals as well as through food drives. While we can’t solve most of the challenges faced by our clients, we can work to get them the food they need so their money can be spent elsewhere.  

The food we offer our clients can make a huge difference as to whether we can really meet their needs, or simply alleviate an immediate crisis, so being thoughtful about your choices can have a powerful impact. If your or your community are contemplating donating to anti-hunger programs, here’s what you should know.

What we love:

Donate foods that make YOU happy. If you love it, chances are someone in our clientele will love it too. We serve an incredibly diverse population, and I’ve yet to encounter a food that someone doesn’t want. Go ahead and donate canned dolmas, giant jugs of chili oil, and bags of dried mushrooms. Someone’s got a recipe they’re excited to try.

Seasonings and condiments. There is a strong emphasis on donating healthy foods right now (as there should be) but even with all the healthy options in the world, it can be hard to make them into a tasty meal without salt, pepper, herbs, or spices. These are more expensive ingredients, which means they are donated less frequently.

Baking ingredients. While boxed mixes are wonderful for many people, we also serve plenty of clients who are delighted to make their own bread, cookies for their grandkids, or sometimes even pastries for food pantry staff! We are chronically low on flour, sugar, baking soda and powder, baking chocolate, and other ingredients for from-scratch baking. These items in particular often help people celebrate their culture and traditions, and we love any chance we have to uplift them.

If you’re planning a food drive and know the specific organization you want to donate to, call and ask what they need! They will probably have some very specific answers, and appreciate your attention to their food supply.

What we don’t love:

Homemade foods. You may be the most accomplished canner in the world, but we don’t know that, and all our foods must be made in a commercial kitchen so we cannot give away your beautiful homemade jam.

Open and partially-used foods. If you’re moving or cleaning out your kitchen, you may be eager to donate half-empty bags of sugar or gently-used spices rather than throw them out. While they may be safe and functional, no one wants someone else’s cast-offs. Give these to your friends instead because we cannot distribute them.

Alcohol. It should be obvious, but it happens too regularly that someone donates a bottle of wine or a couple cans of beer. While it is surely well-intentioned, there are a million reasons (and federal regulations) why we can’t give theses away.

When you package items together. Most pantry models cannot keep your donation together, so while we appreciate the thought that goes into taping spaghetti, pasta sauce, and shelf-stable parmesan together, it is highly unlikely that we can distribute them that way.

Want to do even more?

Donate year-round. Consider signing up for a program like the Portland Food Project (commonly known as Green Bag) that ensures donations come in throughout the year instead of just during the holidays. My household participates, and we have fun every two months loading up our green bag at the grocery store with the food options I know are most in demand. My food pantry is also a recipient, and the program adds essential variety to our food supply, especially in the summer months when donations drop significantly.

Avoid glass options when you can. With the volume of food we’re working with, it can be hard to ensure it is all handled as gently as it should.

Consider adding non-food items like can openers, toothbrushes, diapers (especially bigger sizes) or menstrual hygiene products. Many food banks and pantries also have systems to distribute these high demand items.   

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!

Every day, our food pantry distributes approximately 7,000 pounds of food, all of which is carried or loaded on carts from the warehouse to be displayed on shelves, tables, or in bins. The physical demands of this work are extreme, and volunteers and staff are often exhausted at the end of shifts.

It’s easy to get caught up in these big numbers- our team moves 35,000 pounds of food per week, and we’re extremely proud of it. But tangible statistics like this can also mean that we forget to consider the other forms of labor that are equally essential to keep a food pantry running. For instance, the labor of helping someone facing food insecurity feel more comfortable and at ease while shopping at a food pantry.

Using a food pantry is highly stigmatized, and people experiencing food insecurity may feel embarrassed, humiliated, or simply extra emotional when they walk through our doors.

Welcoming clients to the pantry requires staff and volunteers to put forth extra positive and open energy.

I see this effort each day in how our team practices empathy as we explain the process for an overwhelmed new shopper, patience as we explain it again for individuals who worry about doing something wrong, and sympathy as we confess how our food supply may not meet everyone’s needs.

In part due to the stigma of food assistance, people often wait until their cupboards are completely bare before they seek our services.  Sometimes they arrive under massive stress, which at times can manifest in some uncomfortable encounters: disrespectful or abusive language and unpredictable or even scary behavior.

It’s important for food pantries to explicitly recognize that managing client stress levels while offering respectful, dignified food assistance is emotionally exhausting.

Our pantry staff are exceptionally skilled in de-escalation, and when difficult or dangerous situations are diffused with skill, it’s easy for leadership to miss the fact that it was necessary at all.  And even harder to recognize the full extent of the emotional labor that goes into prevention rather than reaction.

 To build a pantry that prioritizes compassion, respect and dignity requires enormous amounts of effort to ensure clients feel welcome even when they’re rude, or feel taken care of even when they’re dissatisfied, or feel like their needs are heard even when we can’t meet them.

Recognizing that emotional labor is an essential part of fighting hunger, how can leaders in anti-hunger organizations better support their staff and volunteers?

• Listen. For many people, even the concept of emotional labor is unfamiliar. I’m confident my female readers, and some men out there, have tried to explain the stresses and demands of emotional labor, only to have them brushed away.  Anti-hunger leaders need to listen and learn about the emotional demands of this work.

• Be aware of gender roles.  Non-profit organizations are predominately staffed by women and managed by men.  Men in leadership roles need to engage in structuring a dialogue, recognize, and share the weight of emotional labor in the workplace.

• Recognize the extra burden through compensation.  Exhaustion due to emotional labor means other tasks may not get done, which can impact performance, promotions, and wages.   Leaders must work to avoid penalizing women working just as hard, if not harder than their male peers.  Emotional labor is rarely listed on job descriptions, but can easily be a full-time job in itself.

Major thanks to Kern Herron for his contributions to this piece.

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!

For the past week or more, anti-hunger advocates have been nervously watching the news regarding a potential government shutdown. A shutdown would have had immediate, harmful impacts on programs that are essential for keeping families fed, and left charitable organizations strained to the max.

SNAP, WIC, and the National School Lunch Program are the most effective tools we have for fighting hunger.

SNAP serves nine times more people than American food banks, which is why a pause in funding had this field so panicked.

For an industry that is already overwhelmed with need, the repercussions of this shutdown had my colleagues and I quaking in our shoes. The thought of adding to our already oversized workload was daunting, to put it mildly.

Although I’m relieved to see that the immediate crisis has been postponed, the panic this incited in the anti-hunger field is important to examine.

Several days ago, I had an informational interview with someone who works on national-level anti-hunger program implementation, and I learned that these advocates are equally exhausted. During the height of the pandemic, fears of hunger rates escalating out of control led to the dedication of significant (and needed!) additional funding. But this boost in resources also increased the workload of the people who administer the programs far beyond their capacity.

My colleague and I commiserated on the fact that anti-hunger advocates at every level are burnt out. A perpetually increasing workload (with no end in sight) and the nonprofit industry’s preference for spending as much as possible on clients and programs and as little as possible on staffing and overhead means that staff lack the support to thrive (or even just succeed) in their roles.

We’re reaching a tipping point.

At the end of February 2023, people receiving SNAP benefits lost approximately $90 per person per month to spend on food. Anti-hunger advocates correctly sounded the alarm that we were facing a hunger crisis that could overwhelm emergency food resources.

Several months later, those warnings have been proven correct. My food pantry has seen a significant increase in the number of clients, and particularly in people who have never before used emergency food services. A year ago, we were serving about 110 households per day. Last Friday, we served 181 in the same four-hour period.

Considering the impacts of inflation, we anticipate breaking new attendance and distribution records every month from now through at least December.

It is important that we continue to provide exceptional service to these families, but I’m also realizing that now is the time we need to pay attention to our anti-hunger advocates.

The physical demands of running a food pantry include moving several thousand pounds of food every day alongside the emotional labor of making sure clients feel comfortable and safe, volunteers are welcomed, and as much support as possible is provided to individuals in crisis. Growing numbers of clients mean more food, higher stress levels, and greater administrative responsibilities, all to be completed in the same eight-hour workday.

No matter how much we love the work, we cannot continue to meet the demands being placed on emergency food assistance programs without additional support.

As the holidays approach, we will begin to hear calls for food drives, volunteers, and funds from food banks and pantries who will likely cite the increasing hunger needs of our communities. They may boast about how the majority or entirety of your donation goes to helping people in need. What this claim neglects to include is that they only achieve this by minimizing wages and depriving staff of the resources they need to do their job well.

How can you fight hunger without burning out your advocates?

• Research the priorities of your favorite nonprofits. Do they boast about low overhead costs? Does their staff make a living wage? Let this inform your donation decisions and be vocal about it.

• Advocate for trust-based philanthropy. The neglect of nonprofit staff is just as much a fault of funders as it is of leadership. When organizations have the autonomy to spend money how they want rather than being told by outside voices, they can make choices that support their mission rather than cater to donor preferences.

• Remember that hunger is a systemic problem, based in oppression and poverty, and that long-term effective solutions will address these issues rather than just food access. Support anti-poverty measures by voting, advocacy, and engaging with your elected leaders.

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!

I once lived in an apartment on a quiet street where my dog woke up annoyingly early for the first walk of the day. One summer, I noticed a young man regularly sleeping in his car on our street.

My morning dog walk often coincided with passing him as he brushed his teeth and put on his dress shirt and blazer. Then he’d drive away, presumably to work, where I would guess that no one knew he was living in his car.

Our society has a very narrow idea of what it looks like to be houseless, typified by mental illness and substance use, which massively fails to understand the nuances and complexity of the experience. These assumptions can also cause us to misinterpret the food needs of people who are not securely housed.  

Houseless vs. Homeless

The words we use carry power, which is why it’s important to be thoughtful and reflective of our choices.

In my food pantry, we are intentional about using the term “houseless” rather than “homeless.” Because the term “home” encompasses a structure as well as our surrounding relationships and support system, “homeless” implies that someone doesn’t belong, both physically and socially. Although some of our clients lack a physical house, many have strong roots and relationships in the community that should not be dismissed or erased. This is their home, no matter where they live.

Our society tends to assume that people who are houseless only live on the street. The reality is there are many ways someone may be without a consistent place to stay.

• People who lack a physical house may jump from couch to couch in friends’ homes.

• They may live in a long-term hotel or a shelter.

• We serve an increasing number of people who are staying in their cars.

• Some individuals have a car which allows them to travel to a camp in the woods for greater privacy and safety.

• I’ve met individuals who rented a self-storage locker and lived there for months at a time.

Particularly in the Portland Metro area where housing costs are incredibly high, it’s entirely feasible that someone can have a steady income and a car but still not be able to meet the demands of a rental deposit and consistent bills. Without the capacity to prep or store food, it can be hard to access the food they need to thrive and be secure.

We often don’t know if people are houseless when they enter our pantry. When they don’t meet our visual expectations of an unhoused person, we often assume they are securely housed, which can influence the foods that are offered to them.

Accommodating Diverse Needs

The foods that food banks and pantries offer are generally not well-suited to those experiencing houselessness. Especially with the growing push for healthier, from-scratch options, food pantry resources increasingly require access to a kitchen and cooking implements.

Without consistent housing, our clients may not have a refrigerator to store food, a saucepan for cooking it, or even a fork to eat with which limits what these shoppers can eat.

Our food pantry is located downtown in a major metropolitan area with a significant houseless population. Years ago, the organization realized that there was a need for more options than fruits and vegetables and canned goods to meet the needs of the people who couldn’t use our average pantry offerings.

We now operate a Snack Window, which is open to everyone but particularly targeted at people without cooking capabilities. Here we serve donated sandwiches and salads from Safeway and 7-11, chips, granola bars, juices, protein shakes, and pastries from Starbucks. (Because it is all donated, we never know what we will get, which is why it is a “snack window” as opposed to a “meal” or “lunch” site).

This window currently serves over one hundred individuals per day, including people living outside, in their cars, couch surfing, shelters, or in apartments that lack kitchens, cooking equipment, or utilities.

We also offer what we call a Traveler’s Box. I once received an impassioned note from a houseless client who was frustrated that when he had shopped at our pantry in preparation for a holiday closure, there were few options he was able to stock up on without access to a kitchen. This note inspired the Traveler’s Box for anyone who is looking for more than a snack but unable to cook.

These boxes include canned soups, fruit, meats (such as tuna and chicken) and meals like Chef Boyardee or Spaghetti-O’s, which are all pop-top and don’t require a can opener. We also pack shelf-stable milk and cereal, peanut butter, crackers, and snacks like chips and granola bars. Traveler’s Boxes provide more food than the daily snack window option but likely less than what people might take if they did a full shop, which is often ideal for those who may be on foot or have limited storage capacity.

The demand for these types of foods varies based on the population served. Food pantries in less accessible locations to individuals on foot may not have such a need for instant and easy-to-prepare options. But all anti-hunger organizations should assume that a portion of their clientele is under-housed, and ensure they offer options and services to support them.

How can pantries support people experiencing houselessness?

-Encourage donations of can openers, pop-top cans, and foods that don’t require preparation or refrigeration and make them easily accessible to clients.

-Seek out donations of prepared foods like sandwiches, cut fruit, and single-serve drinks.

-Educate volunteers, donors, and staff on the complexity of houselessness and discuss our assumptions and stereotypes.

-Engage or partner with local shelters who may offer or know of additional resources.

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!

As I pushed a cart piled high with fresh fruit into the food pantry lobby, a child of about 8 years old yelled out “FRUIT!” in a hilariously loud and deep voice. He eagerly selected apples, nectarines, blueberries, and several bags of grapes while his mom assured me that he’d eat them all in no time. 

I love it when our shoppers are excited about the options we have, and I always encourage my clients to help themselves when they see items that will bring them joy and nourishment. But it’s also important to note that because this client took so much fruit, other clients had less available to them.

I am a passionate advocate for allowing clients to take as much as they want of whatever they like. For those who believe that individuals living in poverty can’t be trusted to make sound choices, this is a daring and uncomfortable strategy. The opposite approach is to manage client choices by dictating what and how much food they can take, which is often justified in the name of fairness.

If we are working to end hunger, is fairness an appropriate goal?

In food pantries, food supplies are often closely managed to ensure that everyone has access to all the same food and no one is given an advantage over another (like taking all the red onions so that someone else doesn’t get any).

As anti-hunger advocates increase our understanding of social justice, we’re starting to recognize that equitable food access acknowledges everyone has different needs and challenges that bring them to the food pantry, and there’s no “one size fits all.”

Initially, it sounds reasonable that everyone visiting a food pantry be given the exact same options. No one wants to see that the person in line in front of them get a box of strawberries while they get none. Is that fair?

Why should food pantries focus on equity instead of fairness?

Everyone has different needs.

Some families are thrilled to fill their shopping cart with fresh fruit. Others eagerly stuff their bags with frozen breakfast sandwiches. Occasionally, someone is enthused about cream of mushroom soup. It does all these households a disservice to give them all the exact same thing, even if the fresh fruit family won’t eat the breakfast sandwiches, and only one person wants the cream of mushroom soup. By limiting their options, all these families will probably leave the pantry with less food than they need because they don’t take the food they won’t use.

It’s easy for people of privilege to rationalize that if someone is truly hungry, they’ll take whatever is offered (the idea “beggars can’t be choosers”), but that attitude is ignorant of reality. We shouldn’t expect people to give up their cultural, religious, or nutritional needs to accommodate our judgements about what is fair.

Many food pantry clients have different cooking capabilities.

Some people have full kitchens, but many are working with nothing but a microwave or a hot plate. Some people have refrigerators, and some have campfires. Mandating that everyone has equal access to all the same types of foods simply reduces the amount of available food that they can utilize (one of the pillars of food security.) A senior may have no interest in chopping up a heavy squash, while a immigrant family may be passionately opposed to eating microwave meals. Allowing each of these households one squash and one prepared meal does them both a disservice.

Many food pantry clients also have disabilities or chronic illness, and dictating that they have access to the same foods as everyone else can also impact their health. A diabetic may prefer taking extra vegetables over canned fruit. A gluten-free individual may want to snack on apples rather than the box of crackers granted to them.

Food pantries will never have a food supply that enables them to treat everyone fairly.

We are chronically short of popular items like fresh berries, cooking oil, eggs, and pasta sauce. There will always be clients who get some while others don’t. The only option for creating a totally fair system is to store these items until we’ve collected enough for everyone (but how much is everyone? All the clients who attend in a day, a week, a month?)

My definition of what is fair is probably different from yours.

Particularly when it comes to deciding what and how much food someone experiencing hunger should get, what is considered fair varies based on cultural background, country of origin, level of affluence, and many other factors. As the leadership of nonprofits and charities are predominantly composed of white, affluent seniors without lived experience of poverty, their concept of what is fair is probably different from that of the people they serve.

When we institute systems that are one-size-fits-all (even when we adjust for household size, as pantries regularly do), we dismiss the unique needs of our community.

Every single one of my clients will emphatically argue that their needs are different from anyone else’s, and they don’t want the same foods. Increasingly, food justice organizations are working to acknowledge these differences (which is why grocery-style/client choice food pantries are growing in popularity as organizations move away from the pre-boxed model.)

Although I won’t deny that an equitable model allowing clients to take what they need requires more oversight, deliberate management, and thoughtful reflection, accommodating the diversity of needs in our food pantry will always provide more effective support for those seeking assistance. If we are truly committed to ending hunger, we need to demonstrate it by prioritizing the needs of our community over our own comfort and ideas of fairness.

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!

Occasionally, someone pulls up to our food pantry in a shiny, pristine car. There are no Mercedes or Tesla in our parking lot, but a well-maintained car with a bit of chrome stands out. This is something that our volunteers tend to notice immediately, and begin grumbling.

“They don’t need our food.”

“If they can afford that car, then they can afford their own groceries.”

In the U.S., we have a very rigid perspective of what poverty should look like, heavily influenced by suspicions that poverty stems from bad choices rather than systemic problems. A nice car pulling into a food pantry is seen as confirmation of these suspicions that people either are looking to take advantage of the system or made a foolish purchase that forces them to seek food assistance.

I am confident that neither assumption is true.

Poverty and hunger are not chronic conditions. They ebb and flow. Most people who struggle financially also experience periods of relative stability.

On average, Americans live in poverty poverty for about three years before at least temporarily regaining stability, and only a minority experience it for extended periods of time. This doesn’t mean that people are comfortable, but it does mean they are not constantly on the verge of a financial crisis.

When individuals are feeling financially secure, they can treat themselves to a reliable car that makes their life easier.

We all have different ways of treating ourselves, and poverty shouldn’t disqualify someone from practicing self-care. It doesn’t make sense to get rid of that reliable car when we hit hard times just because it doesn’t conform with society’s vision of what poverty looks like.

 Most Americans do not have an emergency fund. That means that all it takes is one major car repair, medical bill, or job loss to upset a comfortable lifestyle. If we believe that everyone deserves to eat, then we need to serve everyone without judgement knowing that the situations which bring them to a food pantry are valid and complex (and also none of our business).

Food pantries and anti-hunger activists should actively engage their community in fighting assumptions which reinforce the stigma and shame of hunger.

Here are three talking points for educating your community on why poverty may not match their vision:

• Although it may be more expensive initially, a well-maintained, quality car will often run better than a dented vehicle with 300,000 miles on it. Why should anyone turn down the opportunity to drive something reliable that will last longer if they have the capability?

We have a food pantry client whose car doesn’t work in reverse, which means every time she visits, we must physically push her car out of the parking lot. If she had the option, should she choose to keep it because it is cheaper than something more functional?

And someone driving a nice car may have borrowed it, it may have been a gift, or the driver may be shopping for someone else who was unable to come to the pantry in person.

• Our pantry has recently started serving many more families using emergency food assistance for the first time. Inflation has depleted the finances of individuals who previously never imagined having to use our services.

• For some people, they will only need to visit a food pantry a couple times before they regain their stability. For other clients, it may take much longer. Either way, most of these people probably don’t identify as poor.

• Everyone deserves nice things. Obviously, what is accessible to an individual changes based on financial situation, but in the same way I will argue that all our clients deserve organic produce, expensive meats, or a cookie that makes them smile, they are equally entitled to own things that bring them joy.

If we aspire to end hunger, it’s essential that we take the time to examine our assumptions about poverty. Do you grumble if you see a houseless individual using a cell phone? Would you feel uncomfortable witnessing SNAP benefits being used to buy a fancy steak? 

What is your objection to someone driving a car they can count on to get them where they need to go?

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!

I’m sorry readers- no new blog post this week.

I’ve tested positive for Covid, and it takes all I’ve got just to sit upright on the couch long enough to finish a warm beverage (I lost my sense of taste today so I can’t tell if it’s tea or coffee.) My fiancé has been working hard to prepare tasty meals to keep me nourished, which has me reflecting on the unique requirements our bodies have to stay healthy. Respecting everyone’s individual needs inform much of my practices at the food pantry, so today I’m revisiting this post about how my personal challenges with food inform my own effort to fight hunger.

Check in next week for a new post!

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!

“Can I still get food even though I am working?”

“I lost my job- am I eligible to get food?”

These are two questions that we regularly hear at our food pantry. First-time clients who are brought to our pantry due to inadequate wages or unemployment worry that their situation might make them ineligible to receive food assistance. It is tragic that people in these opposing circumstances both worry that they don’t deserve help feeding themselves and their families.

Why is our idea of who deserves to eat so focused on employment?

The United States first began to view hunger as a domestic issue rather than a problem experienced by impoverished nations facing famine and conflict in the 1960s. As understanding and data around food insecurity grew, the 1970s produced the significant expansion of the Food Stamps program as we know it (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). Providing low-income families with money specifically dedicated to purchasing food, the program had a significant impact on fighting hunger.

In the 1980s, President Reagan began fueling fears of welfare abuse with his rhetoric regarding a mythical “welfare queen,” a caricature of a low-income woman living large on tax-payer dollars. This concept stoked conservative fears of enablement and welfare abuse and has become an integral piece of the American concept of poverty. Fears of abuse by both unemployed individuals unmotivated to work as well as people who don’t really need the assistance have cultivated this complicated relationship between hunger and employment.

A key part of SNAP participation has long been work requirements, which require participating individuals to work a minimum amount of hours every month in order to receive benefits. This policy has recently risen to prominence as it was reevaluated and updated as part of the debt ceiling negotiations. Making sure that people are working or pursuing employment may seem like a simple expectation to set, but making survival conditional on productivity simply brings more shame and humiliation to the experience of being food insecure.

Most households who have the capacity to work are already doing so- this policy does not effectively increase employment.

Work requirements demonstrate more about our cultural reluctance to help people living in poverty than an actual commitment to ending hunger.  

The new policies include work exemptions for houseless individuals and veterans which are actually predicted to increase the number of program participants, but overall continue to reinforce the idea that individuals don’t deserve assistance unless they are working (but if they need help then they’re probably not working hard enough).

Imbuing ideas about who deserves to eat into anti-hunger policies does not do much to change behaviors, but it does ensure that more people don’t have access to resources or don’t believe that they are entitled to the food they need to survive.

When people aren’t allowed to use SNAP, they must turn to other resources like food pantries. Everyone must eat, so these policies simply offload the burden from government to nonprofit programs. There is no option for people to just not eat if they are not deemed deserving enough.

If we’re truly committed to the idea that everyone deserves to eat, then these policies need to be called out for perpetuating the idea that anyone doesn’t deserve access to healthy, nourishing food. Food security should not depend upon your employment status.

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!