
My news feed is increasingly full of conversations examining frightening cuts to SNAP, the glaring hypocrisies of MAHA policies, and rising costs that make it more difficult for everyone to access the food they need. Additionally, food pantries and other emergency food assistance programs face growing client numbers and food shortages. All these conditions increase the difficulty of distributing a limited food supply to growing demand.
While the food pantry struggle to meet community demands is real, it also risks pushing us towards some toxic thinking.
When we implement policies determining who to distribute food to, it also means we decide who doesn’t receive food.
This is the binary I’m committed to fighting.

This blog is called Who Deserves to Eat because I want to examine the ways that the anti-hunger movement engages with the question of deservingness, and how we can move away from it.
When your pantry makes decisions about what zip code disqualifies a shopper from entry, what income limit makes them ineligible, or what identification they need to provide, you choose who will eat tonight and who will go hungry.

This is a slippery slope. There are many ways that our society already catalogues our fellow human beings based on circumstances beyond individual control. When we accept without question that it’s also okay to choose who deserves to eat, it opens the door to believing that we are justified in obstructing food access for those deemed undeserving.
Whose humanity should we recognize? Who should we punish for past transgressions? Who do we think has earned the love and support of their community, and who hasn’t? What do people have to do to earn this support? Too often this deservingness is assigned via identity, such as being a child or a senior or a single mother. Other times it builds on a history of oppression, qualifying those who “work hard” as the rightful beneficiaries to support based on their skin tone, religion, employment status, sexual orientation, or other identity.

The question, “who deserves to eat?” is rhetorical. Few people argue that anyone doesn’t deserve to eat. But it’s important we actually implement that same attitude while we do anti-hunger work. It’s too easily lost amongst all the other challenges of being an anti-hunger advocate.
While your pantry might rightfully run out of food before every person gets what they need, it’s important you remember that no matter what, every human deserves to eat, and your organization doesn’t have the right to make a judgement call otherwise.
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!




































































































