Question 1
With 17.2 million food insecure Americans, do
you think it is ethical/appropriate to implement nutrition policies to limit or
cease the distribution of low-nutrient products, such as soda, snack foods, and
candy?
posted by Anonymous @ 2:24 PM
38 comments
38 Comments:
I think to some extent it is appropriate to implement policies for foods and beverages that are not high in nutritional value. This is something we are seeing with the "food secure" population in NY with the soda taxes. However, I agree with the comment that although more nutritious foods should be made available (fresh produce), I think it is fair to make items like cookies or soda available in limited quantities. Food secure households have the luxury of chosing whatever they want, and I believe it should be no different for food insecure households. However, I am not implying that they should be able to select all the chips, cookies, and candy that they want. Maybe limiting one additional food and additional beverage from the "extras" section.
This is a tricky question to answer. While I believe that eating healthy is important in these populations, I feel like they will never be able to get off the food bank assistance if they are hungry due to a lack of food. I also think these low nutrient products are very cheap and would make it more available to help people who need assistance by lowering the cost of helping each person. With that being said I do not think they should limit it. However, I do believe that the healthy choices need to be there as well so that the person can determine their own fate. Just because they lack the funds to purchase all of their own foods should not necessarily take away from their ability to make health decisions for themselves. I do believe that education on foods at these places should be mandatory though.
I agree with Alana! This is what I was trying to say in my repose but she said it much more eloquently. Just because people need assistance does not mean that their choices should be incredibly limited if people are willing to donate the food.
Although this is a tricky question to answer, as I would love to see everyone always have the resources to access fresh, nutrient dense foods, I can't say that I find it ethical to ban low-nutrient products from being distributed at food banks. Families relying on food banks most likely have many, many other things on their plate that they deal with on a daily basis. Limiting foods that are distributed may limit the amount of people able to be fed. I feel like that isn't ethical, although I truly would love to see policies that encourage more nutrient-dense food to be donated!
To extend on Nate's comment on low-nutrient foods being cheap, they are also practical for food banks. In general, as nutritional value goes down, the shelf stable factor goes up.
I believe that knowledge is the best power. I think that if people understand what a lack of nutrients does to their body, they may be more likely to make better choices. I also believe that if food banks could highlight their healthy options and limit their calorie-dense options, people would be forced to eat a little bit healthier.
I agree with Emily in that most people who are coming to food banks have a lot more to worry about than just their diet. However, if medical issues arise that could have been prevented by good nutrition, that's one less thing that people would have to be concern about.
I like Joci's idea and agree that educating the consumers using promotional materials will empower the customers to make more informed decisions.
Considering the number of people involved, I believe it will be beneficial to impose nutrition policies on food items.
This is because, food insecure Americans heavily rely on food banks for their daily bread. In any case they do not have as many choices as a regular customer in a grocery store. E.g. I have never seen Peppridge farm /organic /specialty products being offered at food banks. THESE PEOPLE ACCEPT WHAT IS PROVIDED. THEY SELDOM GET TO CHOOSE.
Thus, implementing some healthful choices can only help improve their nutritional status, if at all.
I do think that it is ethical and appropriate to offer guidance and nutrition education at food banks, but I do not support limiting unhealthy foods to the food insecure. My experience volunteering at food banks reflects the fact that a vast majority of the shelf-stable products donated are typically less nutrient dense than those I have observed placed in the more food secure individual’s grocery cart. I also agree that implementing nutrition policies that will limit low-nutrient products will harm donor relationships. I don’t think that it is feasible on either side of the coin. Food-secure or not, a person should be able to freely choose their meal options. I suppose, at the end of the day, food banks must answer the question inherent in their mission statements “What does it mean to feed the hungry?” and subsequently structure their programs to reflect their answers.
To extend Emily's comment regarding shelf stability: what do the food inseucre have in regards to storage and preparation? Many of the food insecure that I came into contact with as an undergraduate lived in motels and had seasonal employment. Thus, the food banks in that area focused on providing shelf stable food items, food safety/meal prep/nutrition educaiton, and ready-to-go hot meals during the "dead season".
I really believe that they should cease the distribution of these "moderation" foods. Working at EFNEP has opened my eyes to the world of the food insecure population and they are almost all overweight/obese. This is because food banks have mostly all junk food! The employees at EFNEP were thrilled to get pears donated because getting fresh fruit rarely happens. Almost everything is processed, energy dense, pre-packaged foods that have little nutritional value. And unfortunately food pantries and soup kitchens are at the mercy of what is donated and can't be picky about the food they get. If anything, food banks should not be able to accept moderation foods.
Lynetta brings up a really good point about considering storage space and the resources that people have to prepare items. They may only have access to a microwave, no access to a fridge, etc. Pre-packaged, shelf-stable items may be the only option for some individuals.
I agree with most of the comments regarding moderating the availability of these nutrient-poor foods, and that nutrient-dense foods should always be plentiful and emphasized.
While the current discussion definitely has merit, I think it is imperative we address the reason why nutrient-poor foods are more available than nutrient dense foods.
Has anyone even addressed the oxymoron that food-insecure Americans are more likely to be obese? It's 2013 and a bag of highly processed snack-food containing numerous unpronounceable ingredients is cheaper than a bag of carrots.
As nutrition professionals I feel it is the norm to turn a blind eye to our food system and I find it horrifying that many RDs and soon-to-be-RDs are completely unaware or in denial of the state of the American agriculture industry. Concern for the system is not limited to those involved in policy; we should be deeply concerned and motivated to take action. As nutrition professionals, it is duty.
It's common knowledge that the fruit and vegetable lobbyists (or lack thereof) have little to no effect on the food industry compared to the corn, sugar, meat, dairy, and egg industries.
If we REALLY want things to change, it's time we start playing an active role and writing to our representatives to let them know how important it is they support the industries that contribute to nutrient-dense food supply.
Until people start demanding healthy, cheap food, the status quo will be maintained.
I think it is appropriate to limit low-nutrient foods in a food bank. soda and candy provide nothing more than calories, and these can be bought at any convenience or grocery store cheaply. Most food insecure Americans are located near at least a convenience store and may qualify for EBT card so snacks and soda are very easy to find and buy. A food bank should be a resource for finding nutritious food not calorie-dense food.
I agree with Taylor. Our food system is a mess. We have federal subsidies which allow processed foods to be bought cheaply, along with the fact that most food insecure Americans are overweight/obese. There really needs to be some serious policy changes with our food system, but sadly I don't see that happening anytime soon
I would like to see a study that surveys or interviews the food bank consumers both in food banks that have a "no-junk" policy and in food banks that still allow choice. I can get behind the idea of limiting access to these foods, but I would still like to see what the consumer response is to each option. If junk food is banned, will consumers go elsewhere to get those foods? Will having access to produce allow them to better allocate money in the long run because junk food is so cheap? Will having limited choice improve their health in the long run by changing their attitudes?
Also important to consider is quality of life when junk items are banned. I recently read a blog post about what poverty is like, and often times having a bright spot such as a candy bar in one's life can make the difference in them getting out of bed in the morning. It can be one of the few good memories kids have when growing up in poverty. I have an older friend who told me she grew up in the south in poverty and all she wanted when she grew up was to be able to afford to keep soda pop in her house (she struggles with weight now). If these items are out of reach, then they can become fixations later in life that have a rubber-band effect and still negatively affect health.
Sarah S. said...
I think that it is important to offer all types of foods to the consumers. At the end of the day, limiting what is accepted will limit the amount of mouths able to be fed. If I'm someone who has fallen on hard times and is going to either be hungry tonight or can at least get something in my stomach to fill me up, I'll take whatever is available. In my opinion we need to educate people as to what is healthier and how to use the healthier options. I know some food banks get items like dried beans and consumers just don't understand how to prepare them. So I think that education is a big issue that we can address as dietetics professionals.
Sarah S. said...
I agree with Taylor that we need to do some serious re-thinking of our food policies. It should be cheaper to eat what grew right out of the earth than what was synthesized in a chemistry lab.
I will have to agree with the majority that we should not limit certain foods based on nutritional value to those who are food insecure. I will also agree that the more nutritional knowledge a person has the more likely they will make better food choices so any form of education at the food bank would be wonderful. But just because they have the knowledge does not mean they like the healthier options or have the means to cook it. Also I think the most important thing here is to fill the belly of the food insecure person so giving them more option will be ideal.
I think that it would be unethical to limit the availability of low nutrient foods. As others have said, people with food security have the freedom to choose less healthy options and those who are food insecure should have that option too. However, because of the issue of food insecurity more nutrient dense foods should be pushed to those populations.
Well, this question feels very similar to the discussion we had about taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. So, I feel two ways about it. However, I think it is less appropriate to refuse donated items. I think that somehow, efforts should be made to get farmers and food retailers involved in the donation of fresh fruits and vegetables when possible.
I agree with Taylor, et al. about the food production system being a giant mess. No matter what kind of planning you do on an individual (food bank) level, there is a deeper system that promotes so many of the nutritional issues in the U.S. I have absolutely no experience with food banks, so this is a topic that is foreign to me. I have seen some success stories with customer/client/neighborhood-run gardens which promote urban gardening.
Alana, I think having a limit on nutrient-poor items is a great idea. Those little treats can make all the difference in quality of life, and I'm sure most of us have a few treats each week. Perhaps having something like a punchcard for different food groups at the food bank could be an option, with allowing so many punches per week for low-nutritional items, and so many punches for produce, etc?
Carly Johnson said...
This is indeed a tricky question. I feel like the term "food insecure" has many definitions. America's definition of food insecure is way different than underdeveloped countries definition.
I could go both ways on this. I feel like limiting the distribution of the low-nutrient products would be a positive, but then I think about all that food going to waste. "Bad" calories are better than no calories. Also, the low-nutrient products are the most shelf stable, and that's exactly what food banks need.
While I don't think that it is appropriate to cease distribution of low-nutrient products, it bothers me to see the quality of some of the foods donate. And if I'm honest with myself, I have probably been guilty of donating less healthy items because they are cheaper or on sale. I agree with others that some kind of system to limit the selection of 'junk' foods may be appropriate. I also think that while food banks rely heavily on donations, it is not unreasonable for them to publish guidelines or suggestions regarding acceptable food donations. I know if I'm donating, I love to know what is needed by the organization so I can feel I am truly helping.
I agree with Taylor and Amy's comments about the state of our food system. I think there are ways we can be creative to get more fresh foods in food banks, but it can take some work. There could be an opportunity to work with local farmers/farmer's markets to take items they were unable to sell and can't store to the food banks. It could be a tax write off for the farmers and prevent food from going to waste. The challenge for food banks would be storage and distributing the fresh food before it spoils.
I would first follow this question with another, who is to determine the cut-off for which foods are low-nutrients and which are high-nutrient? Clearly, candy and soda would qualify as low-nutrient, but others may have different opinions on different snack foods. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to cease distribution of these foods. A better idea would be to develop more nutrition education programs. This would give people the knowledge to know which foods are healthy and which are not. After all, everyone has the right to choose to eat unhealthy if they want to.
To extend Kelsey's comment, I agree that after working in a food pantry, it is clear that many of the patrons are overweight. I believe that instead of restrictions on low-nutrient foods, there should be incentives for high-nutrient food donations. This way there would be a wider variety of healthy foods to choose from.
This is very difficult because we want to increase nutrient dense food availability especially for those individuals and households with limited resources and insecurities. Implementing policies to limit low-nutrient products may have positive and negative effects. The important thing to look at is what would take the place of these foods in distributions. Would these policies to limit low nutritious foods be accompanied by policies increasing high nutrient foods?
To further address the question, implementing policies such as these would be reducing the choices people have, which should be available for those who are secure as well as insecure in food resources.
As Alyssa said it would be very important to address what kinds of foods would replace these low nutrient foods. If they would be replaced with high nutrient foods then the policy would be successful. However, it they aren't replaced, it would be better to have the low nutrient foods than let people go hungry.
I think as some have said, it would also be beneficial for food pantries to offer incentives for people who choose high nutrient foods over low nutrient foods.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do not think we should try to put rules and regulations on what people can receive. I think it is great that people are still donating food, it may not all be healthy,but it is food. I think we could do better with educating people on the types of foods to donate to food pantries but that is as far as it should go. I think there should be more strict regulations on what you can buy with SNAP. I think if we make sure only healthy items are available with SNAP than people will have to spend their extra money to get the not so healthy items they want. And that alone may cut back on their consumption.
I am not so sure I agree with the fact that many of you are saying unhealthy foods are cheaper than healthy foods. This is the point RDs are dying to make to the people that use that excuse to buy energy dense foods. I think I addressed this in a different question but it depends what you are purchasing of course. You can't compare some fruit that is out of season to something like Ramen. I just had a quick look on Schnuck's website and a cantaloupe is $2, a package of lettuce was $2, a little single serve container of yogurt is $0.45. It is obviously not expensive when you compare that to a bag of chips, pop, or candy. I think food pantries do not receive the fruit and veggies because it gets old so quickly that by the time it got to the food bank and then out to the food pantry it wouldn't be good anymore.
I will agree with Carly that it could be positive to limit the low-nutrient dense foods. They should still be available just in a lower quantity than the healthier options. This could increase the likelihood that a person will choose the healthier foods options.
I think Courtney made a good point about how low nutrient foods would be determined. It would become a very sticky situation with some companies trying to prove that only their product should be allowed and so on. Courtney also made a good point about doing more nutrition education instead of trying to ban foods.
I like what Emily stated that candy, snack foods, and soda are bought very cheaply at grocery stores and convenience stores. I feel like people will buy them anyways if they don't receive them from a food bank. People are addicted to soda, so I don't see it stopping them.
I really like the way Joci stated "knowledge is the best power." I too agree that education is one of the most important aspects of our job and teaching our patients/clients the importance of the diet and lifestyle modification we (or a physician) may be suggesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home