A thought-provoking piece in the Post by a former food bank director on the politics of food donation:
And here we are, putting on the same play again this year. But come Friday, as most of us stuff more leftovers into our bulging refrigerators, 35 million Americans will take their place in line again at soup kitchens, food banks and food stamp offices nationwide. The good souls who staff America's tens of thousands of emergency food sites will renew their pleas to donors fatigued by their burst of holiday philanthropy. Food stamp workers will return to their desks and try to convince mothers that they can feed their families on the $3 per person per day that the government allots them. The cycle of need -- always present, rarely sated, never resolved -- will continue.
Unless we rethink our devotion to food donation.
America's far-flung network of emergency food programs -- from Second Harvest to tens of thousands of neighborhood food pantries -- constitutes one of the largest charitable institutions in the nation. Its vast base of volunteers and donors and its ever-expanding distribution infrastructure have made it a powerful force in shaping popular perceptions of domestic hunger and other forms of need. But in the end, one of its most lasting effects has been to sidetrack efforts to eradicate hunger and its root cause, poverty.
He posits that increases in handouts through food banks and similar programs has only proven to increase the number of people who come for those handouts. And with donors, volunteers, and the food industry so enmeshed in what is now a multibillion-dollar system of food banking, it's become harder and harder to step away an analyze what might be more effective ways of addressing the hunger crisis. Charity has risen in the absence of real government programs that address the roots of hunger and poverty -- programs which have declined precipitously since Reagan. But what if all those volunteers instead came out to lobby the state legislature, or all those donors invested in solutions to the root problems, or everyone came out and supported politicians who put the issues of poverty, hunger, disparity and justice at the top of their agenda?
The Edwards campaign is running a Thanksgiving gimmick in which you get Edwards family holiday recipes in exchange for a donation to the candidate. As much as I'd love to hear about their sweet potato pie recipe, I found it a cheesy campaign tactic, especially in light of the statement Edwards issued yesterday about donations and government funding drying up at food banks around the country. But it makes sense: if you have money to throw around this holiday season, instead of (or perhaps in addition to, since the short-term problems are still very real) giving it to charitable, guilt-absolving programs, investing in a campaign (whatever campaign you support) would go a lot further. Charity can't replace good government concerned with solving real problems.
--Kate Sheppard
