Unhealthy Donations–an oxymoron?
June 15th, 2009 by Jonathan
This weekend, I received a thought-provoking comment from Kathy about the whole Little Debbie’s snafu. I thought she raised such an interesting question that I wanted to get other readers’ reaction to it. Here’s what she wrote:
To call Little Debbie snacks “food” is a real stretch. I love an occasional Swiss Roll as much as the next girl, but I think the folks who are going to food banks to replenish their larder could probably do without more of this kind of sugar and trans-fat laden junk food.
A few thoughts and then I’ll eagerly await your comments:
–I can see both sides of the coin on this one. So don’t hesitate to chime in.
–I think Kathy’s line of thinking quickly gets into dicey territory. Who gets to decide what’s best for everyone? It’d be great if food banks were stocked with local, organic foods, but that’s unlikely. Nor would all of the food bank customers want mostly fresh foods.
–I’ve heard many a food bank employee say that it’s nice to be able to give out some sweets, as they can provide a treat for people who lead hard lives. While they may be more “food-like substance,” than food, to quote Michael Pollan, Little Debbie’s products certainly qualify as sweets.
–On the other hand, eating food that will bring health problems isn’t great for anyone. And given that the cheapest calories tend to be the least healthy, it’s likely that many food bank customers are already eating corn syrup or trans-fat-laden items.
Stumble it! | Posted in Food Recovery |
Interesting. I guess if this kind of food is going to EXIST (and I guess some people wish it didn’t?), then it has some kind of value and wasting it brings on cost. The value might not be nutritional but certainly a lot of resources go into making snack foods. Are those resources ‘wasted’ in the first place because they are used for such a unhealthy product? Maybe. But they are doubly wasted if we just let the snack food go straight to the trash.
Exactly what I thought, people were probably better off without the Little Debbie’s. During a stint of volunteering at a great soup kitchen, we saw how much junk food was donated and how much the patrons craved real food - we were surprised that spinach was a huge favorite. The two best “donators” were farmers from the nearby farmers market who would leave boxes of unsold produce and a local bakery run by a European baker of high quality bread - and yes, some high quality sweets too. Just because people are hungry doesn’t mean they shouldn’t become a disposal for junk. Does it somehow make it less of a wasted resource if we run it through a person first - possibly damaging their health?
I’ve definitely struggled with this same issue in the past. I’ve volunteered at a local organizations that provide food to children over the weekend who during school days qualify for free lunches, and I couldn’t believe how unhealthy the food was. It was so high in sugar, sodium, and most of it lacked nutritional value. “Fruit” snacks, canned pasta and mac & cheese, seemed to be the bulk of the menu. I was beginning to wonder if this was doing more harm than good to the children getting it. But at the same time I wonder what they would eat if they didn’t get this assistance. It’s a tough and complex issue.
Here at Bread for the City, the three main illnesses we treat in our medical clinic are hypertension, diabetes, and high blood pressure — all caused in part by consumption of food like this. As a result, we’ve decided that it’s just not enough to help the hungry eat; even hungry people need to eat well. So we’ve overhauled our pantry’s menu so that our clients receive only nutritious foods from us. Keep in mind that this not so much a question of bad food vs local, organic food. We’re able to purchase low-sodium, low-sugar, low-cholesterol foods without things like transfats etc, at good prices in bulk - it’s not local, or even organic, but at least it’s not contributing to the serious health problems in our community. (In the meantime, I believe we still do have a candy jar… but, broadly speaking, people who are struggling don’t need sweets.)
Very much related: When Michelle Obama visited Miriam’s Kitchen here in DC, the National Review published a column blasting her because Miriam’s Kitchen only serves healthy food and opts not to pass off things like donuts and Little Debbie things. Obama Foodorama had a very good, in-depth response here.
I too see both sides of this issue.
Little Debbie Snacks would not be a healthy cornerstone to any diet, but I highly doubt that anyone would eat them in that manner. No one would go to the food bank and receive a box of nothing but. They would receive them along with a variety of other food stuffs.
The issue here is food waste. The Little Debbie snack cakes did scatter from the truck onto the freeway still in their packaging. And they did get sent to the landfill.
I think this is a perfect opportunity for Little Debbie to gain some much needed positive press by giving a donation to the book bank, which is why I started the campaign on The Non-Consumer Advocate.
I will be contacting the local distributor, which is what was suggested by the national company. It may lead to nothing, but you never know . . . .
Are we such “locavore” snobs that we can’t enjoy a treat now and then?
Katy Wolk-Stanley
“Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.”
Thanks, Bernie, for echoing my concerns.
I know this site is essentially about food waste, but there are consequences for channeling this unhealthy food to the people who already have inadequate nutrition. I’m not advocating accepting only locally- grown, organic whole foods donations (although, wouldn’t that be nice), I’m just advocating for care in what kind of food we channel to low-income families. If we can borrow the physician’s maxim “First, do no harm”, then we should consider if the good intentions of zero-food waste can sometimes be adding to someone’s misery.
Unfortunately, junk food IS a cornerstone of many of these families, and often of their food donations. I found an excellent article on “Race, Poverty and Hunger”, which talks about just these issues. One salient quote:
“While Second Harvest’s network is critical in offering emergency supplies to households in need, the food provided leaves much to be desired nutritionally. Kitchens and pantries distribute what is donated to them by corporations (which receive a healthy tax break) and food drives, the “leftovers” of society. There is little produce and a plethora of unhealthy snacks.”
http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=757&item_id=7796&newsletter_id=63&header=Poverty+%2F+Welfare
Having noted that, I do believe that McKee and its local distributors SHOULD routinely donate cash, if not food items, to their local food banks. As we all should.
Kathy
euthanize several thousand Canada geese around an airport?
News did not say what they were going to do with them, but where I grew up these things were FOOD. My grandmother would steal some of the eggs from the nest and slip them under a brooding chicken. When the goose eggs hatched she would clip off a bit of the wing so they could not fly away. Then when they became adults we would eat them.
I agree that the nutritional value is zero for these products. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy them on occasion if we choose. A basic white bread (yeast, flour, salt, water) has almost no nutritional value either but it is considered a staple in many homes, restaurants and cultures.
And as the Little Debbie snacks are such a processed food their shelf life should be quite long. Those cakes could have been a nice (small) addition to food bank takeaway for months if not more than a year.
My volunteer experience was different than bernie’s. The homeless I fed were quite uninterested in salad, uninterested in other veggies, on the fence about fruit (although I’m not a fan of canned fruit salad either) and tended to go for comfort foods.
I don’t see a problem with this. I don’t imagine they are handing out boxes and boxes per family, so I am going to say that it is okay. What does a box of little debbie’s hold? 6-10 snacks I think. So, a family of 4 or 5 would get one a piece and I think it is okay as an occassional treat. If it was a matter of getting boxes of swiss rolls in your food box, then it would be an issue, but an occasional treat might lift spirits. People that must use a food pantry are going to be a bit down on their luck, so a swiss roll might bring a bit of a smile to the taste buds, even though it has no nutritional value. Just one opinion
I’ve been enjoying all the comments and different points of view. Well done, folks.
What keeps coming to mind is a something Robert Egger told me about the early days at D.C. Central Kitchen:
It seems like there’s a real tension between what soup kitchen clients want to eat and what nutritionists think they should eat. I’m hoping that this is changing; that what Bernie and Greg have found is becoming more prevalent. We’ll see…
We all know that these kinds of foods aren’t good for you. The question is, are they damaging? And in what amount might they be harmful? But in general, I agree with Kris’ take on the topic. I hate to delve into cliches, but “all things in moderation” seems apt.
I think just the fact that such sweets would be a comforting treat to some in their time of need is reason enough to have them there. Are there long term health risks? Of course. But there are probably health consequences to feeling discouraged and sad too. I don’t see the harm in offering things of little nutritional value but possibly of some sentimental value.
Could many of you folks be any more patronizing and superior? Because you feed the poor, you seem to feel you have the right to confine their choices to what you think is healthy for them…serve a variety of healthy and comfort foods and let people make their choices.
I work at a Starbucks, and we’re actually in a similar fix when it comes to wasted sweets. We throw out trays of pastries every night, but we do not donate them (this is not the case with all stores). Honestly, I can’t say I feel bad about it. Our manager related to me how our store used to donate leftover pastries, but a shelter asked us to stop because their tenants were getting sick. Makes sense, if all you have to eat is sugar.
To all,
First of all, it is my understanding that new Feeding America policy puts it on all member food banks/hunger outreach warehouses to have their constituent pantries and agencies be client choice facilities. That being said, if you enter a Feeding America affiliated pantry, then you will have a choice of what to put in your food box. So really, no intellectually superior issues there.
That being said, I have a lot of respect for people who run food pantries, and community meal programs (a.k.a. soup kitchens) that choose to give their clients the preferential option. Let’s be honest here, if you look at the statistics that the CDC puts out about obesity, and heart disease you can see that it’s closely tied into poverty. It’s not just that hungry people are hungry, but that they have intermittent access to food (that is, they are food insecure), and will eat more regularly without an eye towards their health, because they are responding to hunger. So, I’m of the mind that it’s truly awesome when soup kitchen cooks can do healthy food, and make it delicious to their clients, because if it’s the only meal that a person has had in that day, it might as well be a healthy one. Damn straight.
As for the Little Debby snack cakes, I’m a freegan. I say, eat that shit. Store it on the top shelf and bring down a case every once in a while. Oh, and there’s another line to that quote–everything in moderation . . . including moderation.
Peace and Love,
Dan